Title
Chico vs. Ciudadano
Case
G.R. No. 249815
Decision Date
Jul 4, 2022
Petitioner acquired land via tax delinquency sale; respondent, claiming prior ownership, successfully annulled judgment due to extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and exclusion as indispensable party.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 249815)

RTC Grant of Petition and Issuance of Title

In its December 10, 2012 Decision (amended June 27, 2013), RTC Branch 83 declared a general default, canceled TCT No. 57394 (PR-11986), and ordered the Register of Deeds to issue a new title to Chico. A writ of possession was also directed. Finality of the amended decision was attained on April 7, 2015, and TCT No. 004-2016005243 was issued in Chico’s favor.

Petition for Annulment by Ciudadano

In January 2017, Ciudadano filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She asserted that she and her husband had acquired the property via a notarized June 23, 1989 Deed of Absolute Sale duly annotated on TCT No. 57394, and had occupied the land as their family home since 1992. She was never notified of Chico’s petition for new title and discovered the proceedings only upon receiving a writ of possession notice in November 2016.

CA Decision Annuling RTC Judgments

The CA granted Ciudadano’s petition on April 5, 2019, finding that:

  1. Ciudadano was an indispensable and real party in interest by virtue of her registered and annotated 1989 sale and long possession.
  2. Chico deliberately failed to implead or notify Ciudadano, constituting extrinsic fraud.
  3. The RTC thus lacked jurisdiction over Ciudadano, violating her due process rights.
    The CA set aside both the original and amended RTC decisions, voided Chico’s TCT No. 004-2016005243, and reinstated TCT No. 57394 in Bengzon’s name. A motion for reconsideration was denied on October 8, 2019.

Supreme Court’s Grounds on Annulment of Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, emphasizing that under Rule 47 only extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction justify annulment of judgment. It reiterated that the remedy is extraordinary and not a substitute for ordinary remedies. Extrinsic fraud must be committed by the prevailing party outside of trial and must have prevented the aggrieved party from fully presenting the case. Lack of jurisdiction may arise from failure to serve a real party in interest, depriving the court of authority over that person.

Real Party in Interest and Extrinsic Fraud

– Rule 3, Section 2, requires actions to be brought by real parties in interest, defined by material interest in the subject matter.
– Ciudadano’s notarized 1989 Deed, registered on the title, conferred presumption of validity and constructive notice to all.
– Despite actual and constructive knowledge of Ciudadano’s sale and occupation (including observable improvements), Chico omitted her from the petition.
– Such deliberate exclusion constituted extrinsic fraud, justifying annulment since the fraudulent scheme prevented Ciudadano from having her day in court.

Lack of Jurisdiction and Due Process Violations

– Chico’s petition did not provide the address of the occupied premises, preventing service of notices on Ciudadano.
– Absence of service deprived the RTC of jurisdiction over her person, violating



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.