Title
Supreme Court
Arcelona vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 102900
Decision Date
Oct 2, 1997
Co-owners excluded from tenancy suit over inherited fishpond; final judgment annulled due to lack of jurisdiction and due process violations.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 102900)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Property
    • Petitioners Marcelino Arcelona, Tomasa Arcelona-Chiang and Ruth Arcelona (naturalized U.S. citizens) are co-owners pro indiviso of a fishpond in Dagupan City under TCT No. 34341, together with their siblings Pacita Arcelona-Olanday, Maria Arcelona-Arellano, Natividad Arcelona-Cruz and the late Benedicto Arcelona (represented by Ruth).
    • The fishpond was inherited from their parents and remains undivided; ownership shares are not physically segregated.
  • Lease Contract and Subsequent Proceedings
    • On March 4, 1978, co-owners Olanday et al. leased the entire fishpond to Cipriano Tandoc for three years, renewed to February 2, 1984. Tandoc appointed Moises Farnacio as caretaker-tenant on the same date.
    • After lease expiration, Tandoc validly surrendered possession; on February 7, 1984, Farnacio filed Civil Case No. D-7240 in the R.T.C. of Dagupan City, Branch 40, seeking (a) peaceful possession and security of tenure; and (b) damages, with an interlocutory order.
    • On October 31, 1984, the trial court declared Farnacio tenant-caretaker of the entire fishpond; defendants were ordered to maintain his possession.
    • The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed with slight modification (May 31, 1985); this Court in G.R. No. 71217 (Aug. 30, 1990) sustained the IAC decision. On remand, Farnacio was placed in possession (May 25, 1991).
    • Petitioners then filed in the Court of Appeals a petition to annul the final and executory judgment and questioned the implementing sheriff (CA G.R. SP No. 24846). The CA:
      • Directed impleading of R.T.C., Branch 50 (May 8, 1991).
      • Denied the petition (July 16, 1991) and denied reconsideration (Nov. 21, 1991).
    • Petitioners elevated the CA decision to this Court by petition for review (filed May 10, 1992).

Issues:

  • Whether final and executory judgments may be annulled on grounds other than extrinsic fraud—specifically, lack of jurisdiction over subject matter or persons of indispensable parties, and denial of due process.
  • Whether extraneous matters not appearing in the original case record may be used to void a final judgment.
  • Whether an independent action for annulment in the Court of Appeals lies, or petitioners were limited to intervening in the proceedings of the court of origin.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.