Domingo v. David
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves two civil cases. In one, the respondent sought to recover P1,000 plus interest and attorney's fees from the petitioners based on a promissory note signed by the deceased Antonio Manuel and petitioner Teodora Domingo. In the other, the petitioners sought to annul a judgment that foreclosed mortgages and ordered the payment of P4,000, with the alternative of selling the encumbered property. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance initially absolved the petitioners in the first case and nullified the judgment in the second. However, the Court of Appeals reversed both decisions. The respondent's case was decided in favor of the respondent, ordering payment and foreclosure, while the petitioners' attempt to annul the judgment was dismissed. The cases were initially assigned to the First Division of the Court of Appeals but were later reassigned to the Second Division, which promulgated the appealed decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision. They argue that the decision is void because it was signed by justices who did not hear the oral arguments, thus violating due process. They also contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that their action to annul the judgment was barred by a prior motion under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by the principle of res judicata, as the alleged fraud was not extrinsic and had been previously controverted. The petition also raises the issue of newly discovered evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision promulgated by the Second Division of the Court of Appeals is null and void because it was signed by justices who had not heard the oral arguments. Whether the denial of a motion under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a subsequent action for nullity of judgment based on fraud. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the decision nullifying the judgment in civil case No. 43654 was erroneous. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners' equitable remedy on the ground that the alleged fraud was not extrinsic. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the petitioners are not entitled to the equitable remedy based on newly discovered evidence. Whether the defense of res judicata should have been sustained.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the CA's decision and due process: The Court held that the decision promulgated by the Second Division of the Court of Appeals is not null and void. Rule 31 of the Supreme Court, adopted by the Court of Appeals, provides that matters submitted to the court are deemed submitted to all its members, whether or not they were members at the time of submission or present during oral arguments, unless parties specifically request otherwise in writing. Since the petitioners did not make such a written request, the Second Division's decision, which included members who did not hear the oral arguments, was valid. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the hearing in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court is based on the record, briefs, and oral arguments if requested, and a case is deemed submitted after being calendared and read, or after oral argument if requested. The petitioners' contention of lack of due process was therefore without merit. On the effect of denying a motion under Section 113 and the action for nullity of judgment: The Court ruled that the denial of a motion under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for relief from judgment due to error, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect) does not bar a subsequent action for nullity of judgment based on fraud. The Court noted that fraud is not one of the grounds listed in Section 113. However, this point became inconsequential due to the Court's ruling on the nature of the alleged fraud. On the action for nullity of judgment based on fraud: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the action to annul the judgment in civil case No. 43654, based on fraud, should not prosper. The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that an action to annul a judgment on the ground of fraud will only succeed if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral, and if the facts constituting the fraud have not been controverted or decided in the original case. In this instance, the alleged fraud consisted of the falsity of the mortgage deeds and the fictitious nature of the loans, which were precisely the issues raised and decided in the original civil case No. 43654. Therefore, the fraud was intrinsic, not extrinsic, and the action for nullity was correctly denied. On newly discovered evidence: The Court found that the alleged newly discovered evidence did not alter the outcome of the cases. The Court of Appeals had already considered this evidence and concluded that it would not change the established facts. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to an annulment of the judgment on this ground. On res judicata: The Court held that the defense of res judicata was correctly sustained. The facts upon which the petitioners based their claim of fraud in the second case (action for nullity) were the same facts that had been raised, discussed, and decided by the court in the first case (civil case No. 43654). Since the parties were the same, the judgment in the first case constituted res judicata with respect to the second case. On the reversal of the CFI decision: In view of the foregoing rulings, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance. The CA's decision was found to be in accordance with the facts and the law.
Main Doctrine
An action to annul a judgment based on fraud will not prosper unless the fraud is extrinsic or collateral and the facts constituting it have not been controverted or decided in the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The defense of res judicata applies when the facts constituting the alleged fraud have already been raised, discussed, and decided in a prior case between the same parties.