380 Phil. 678
KAPUNAN, J.:
During the pre-trial of this case on August 1, 1986, all the parties and their respective counsel appeared and made the following admissions of facts:
- That the document of sale or "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa" (Annex "C" of the complaint) purportedly executed by Tomas L. Alarcon, as attorney-in-fact of his son Roberto Alarcon (the plaintiff herein), on March 27, 1985 over some portions of the land in question in favor of the defendants Bienvenido Juani (1,000 sq.m.), Edgardo Sulit (500 sq.m.) and Virginia Baluyot (1,000 sq.m.) or a total of 2,500 sq.m., is a forged document (which is subject of a pending criminal case);
- That it is that forged document of sale which was registered with the Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan on May 27, 1985; and
- That after the registration of that forged document, the defendants Juani, Sulit and Baluyot were issued Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. T-294353 (Annex "E" of the complaint), T-294354 (Annex "F" of the complaint), and T-294355 (Annex "G" of the complaint) respectively.
On the basis of the foregoing facts admitted by all the parties, it is very clear that the aforesaid document of sale or "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa" purportedly executed on March 27, 1985 is void ab initio for being a forgery. And, therefore, the three separate titles (TCT Nos. T-294353, T-294354 and T-294355) issued respectively in favor of defendants Juani, Sulit and Baluyot on the basis of that forged document are null and void and should be cancelled.
In view therefore of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
- Declaring the document of sale or "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa" purportedly executed on March 27, 1985 by Tomas L. Alarcon, as attorney-in-fact of Roberto Alarcon, in favor of the defendants Juani, Sulit and Baluyot void ab initio;
- Declaring Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. T-294353, T-294354 and T-294355 issued respectively in the names of Bienvenido Juani, Edgardo Sulit and Virginia Baluyot null and void; and
- Ordering the Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan to cancel the aforesaid certificates of titles.
SO ORDEREDOn September 26, 1986, the trial court issued its pre-trial order,[7] to wit:
Malolos, Bulacan, August 1, 1986(SGD.) BRAULIO S. DAYDAY
Judge.[6]
During the pre-trial of this case conducted on June 3, 1986 and August 1, 1986, all the parties and their respective counsels appeared. There was no amicable settlement reached by the parties. Thus, they proceeded to state their respective contentions and to make some admissions of facts. And on the basis of the admissions made by the parties, the court rendered a partial decision on August 1, 1986 after which the issues remaining to be resolved are the following:
- Whether or not the deed of sale of a portion (2,500 sq. m.) of a parcel of land (10,000 sq. m.) belonging to plaintiff Roberto G. Alarcon (covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-279065) executed by third-party defendant Tomas L. Alarcon, as attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff, in favor of defendant Bienvenido Juani on March 27, 1985 is legal and valid.
- Whether or not third-party defendant Tomas Alarcon had still authority to act for and in behalf of plaintiff Roberto Alarcon when the former executed the aforesaid deed of sale in favor of defendant Bienvenido Juani; and
- Whether or not Tomas Alarcon had complete control of his mental faculties when he executed the said deed of sale on March 27, 1985 in favor of defendant Bienvenido Juani.
With the statement of the foregoing issues, the pre-trial is now deemed closed and terminated. The parties are hereby given fifteen (15) days from receipt of the pre-trial order within which to have it set aside or modified to prevent manifest injustice.On August 8, 1990 petitioner moved for the execution of the Partial Decision considering that no motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed therefrom. At the same time, for the purpose of ending litigation of the case, petitioner offered to drop his claim for damages against the defendants if they were also willing to waive their claims against him and his father. Upon the opposition of defendant Baluyot, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion.
The trial of this case shall proceed on October 7, 28 and 29 and November 6, 1996 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. The parties are all notified of the next assignment.[8]
At today’s scheduled hearing for the initial reception of plaintiff’s evidence, Atty. Sesinando Manuel, Jr. counsel for the plaintiff, reiterated his previous motion to have this case dismiss (sic) with respect to the defendants who are willing to dismiss their counterclaim. Atty. Rosalino Barican, counsel for defendant Buenvenido Juani manifested that he has no objection to have his counterclaim dismissed without prejudice, to effect the partial decision which is with his conformity. The complaint against Bienvenido Juani and his counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED. The Court will proceed with this case only with respect to defendants Virginia Baluyot and Edgardo Sulit. xxx[9]On August 19, 1991, the trial court issued an order granting petitioner’s motion for a writ of execution of the Partial Decision.
DAHIL DITO, batay sa masusing pagaaral sa mga tala at patibay na nasa hukumang ito ay ipinapasiya na ang petisyon ay ipinahihintulot at pinapayagan, at tuloy iniuutos na pawalang saysay ang parsyal desisyon na siyang pinagmulan ng lahat ng kaguluhang ito at gayon din ang "order" ng hukuman sa ibaba na may petsa Enero 24, 1991, kasali na ang "writ of execution" na may petsa Agosto 19, 1991 upang mapawalang bisa ang lahat ng bunga ng kahoy na may lason.Thus, petitioner now comes to this Court raising two (2) main issues, to wit:
Gayon din, iniuutos sa hukumang pinagmulan ng asunto na kailangang magkaroon ng panibagong paglilitis ang kaso ni Bienvenido Juani laban kay Tomas Alarcon.[11]
The Court of Appeals found that extrinsic fraud was attendant in the instant case. It considered the fact that Juani, being unlettered, was not apprised of the proceedings held in the trial court. While it is true that he had lawyers representing him in court, the appellate court opined that he did not understand the proceedings in the trial court, much less the admissions made in the pre-trial conference that the Deed of Sale which was made as the basis for the issuance of titles in favor of Juani, Baluyot and Sulit was a forgery. Under such circumstances, he was allegedly deprived of the parcel of land which he was in possession prior to the controversy.
(1) whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment instituted before the Court of Appeals was filed on time; and(2) whether or not there was extrinsic or collateral fraud attendant in the case which would justify the setting aside of the Partial Decision of the trial court.
SEC. 1. Coverage.- This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. (n)Fraud is extrinsic when it is employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thereby preventing him from asserting his right to property. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procurred.[14] In the case at bar, it cannot be argued that there was extrinsic fraud since Juani was not deprived from having a trial.
SEC. 2. Grounds for annulment.- The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. (n)
SEC. 3. Period for filing action.- If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (n).
From the foregoing, the admissions were clearly made during the pre-trial conference and, therefore, conclusive upon the parties making it. The purpose of entering into a stipulation of facts or admissions of facts is to expedite trial and to relieve the parties and the court, as well, of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.[19]
APPEARANCES: ATTY. SISENANDO MANUEL – Counsel for the Plaintiff ATTY. VENANCIO REYES – Counsel for the Defendants Juani and Baluyot ATTY. LEOPOLDO STA. MARIA – Counsel for the Defendants Gonzales and Sulitxxx ATTY. MANUEL Well, our proposal Your Honor, is just very simple. Ordered the defendants in all we can do to reconvey back the title of the property in question to the plaintiff Tomas Alarcon, Your Honor. Because it is contention that the basis of the acquisition of the property by the third defendant is based on a forged document based on their jurisprudence. They cannot acquired any right allegedly conveyed by the vendor.COURT How many documents are involved in this alleged… (interrupted).ATTY. MANUEL Only one document, Your Honor. In so far as plaintiff is concerned only one document.COURT That was allegedly forged.ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor.COURT And this document conveyed the whole parcel of land to the defendants.ATTY. MANUEL A part of the whole parcel of land to the third defendant, Your Honor.COURT Only a part.ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor, only one. Defendant acquired 500 square meter. The other defendant 1,000 square meters each.COURT What is the total area?ATTY. MANUEL 10,000 sq. m., Your Honor.COURT Now, the area allegedly sold is how much?ATTY. REYES 2,500 sq. m., Your Honor.COURT This is the whole area allegedly sold?ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor.COURT This is now the area which the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendants.ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor.COURT And your contention is that this alleged sale in favor of the defendant is a forgery?ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor.COURT Now, your proposal for settlement is.ATTY. MANUEL Just to reconvey to us the real property as proven separately by three titles because on the basis of this furious (sic) evidence they were able to have a title issued in their favor. Three titles one title for each of the defendants, Your Honor. xxxCOURT And you will not anymore claim.ATTY. MANUEL Any damages, Your Honor.COURT Just this reconveyance?ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor.xxx. COURT How many documents of sale are there?ATTY. REYES There are at least two documents of sale, Your Honor. The problem lies in the fact, Your Honor, the genuine deed of sale was not the document used in the registration of the property to my client. The genuine sale and another document according to the plaintiff was forged and made used for purposes of the registration of the land in question.COURT So, what was registered was the forged document of sale.ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor, they admitted it was a forged document.COURT When you said that there is a genuine, meaning to say that there is not a genuine, is it not.ATTY. REYES Yes, Your Honor, but according as to the execution of this document we have on our hand.COURT Yes, so this genuine document of sale was not the alleged forged document that was registered and finally conveyed this portion of the land in favor of the defendant.ATTY. MANUEL On the alleged genuine deed of sale we questioned impugn the due execution of that document.COURT The one that was registered.ATTY. MANUEL The one that was alluded to by the counsel not the one registered. The one registered is admittedly a forged document.COURT So you are now appealing or impugning the genuineness of this other documents?ATTY. MANUEL Yes, Your Honor.COURT So you are now impugning two documents which are to be forged, that’s what you mean.ATTY. MANUEL That’s what in the pleadings, Your Honor, but in our complaint our actionable document is the forged deed of absolute sale that was registered.COURT But in the defense of the defendants which mentioned another documents you are now impugning to the genuineness did you make a reply to that?ATTY. MANUEL We made a reply, we made extensive and exhaustive reply to that, Your Honor.COURT So on the part of the plaintiff this two documents now are forged so that this document would never have conveyed.xxx. ATTY. MANUEL The second document is now the basis of registration of the three defendants in a separate title in their favor. It is admitted to be a forged document. It was not signed by Mr. Tomas Alarcon.COURT The one used in getting separate title.ATTY. MANUEL It was not even notarized. The notary public, Atty. Adelino Rama, informed us, Your Honor, he did not notarize.COURT I thought it was the first document that was registered.ATTY. MANUEL The forged document.ATTY. REYES The first document was the genuine document, Your Honor. Then the second document is the alleged to be forged which are registered in the Register of Deeds. That is why the separate title was issued.xxx. COURT What is the date of the first document which is the genuine.ATTY. REYES The first document dated March 27, 1985 , Your Honor.COURT And the second document.ATTY. STA. MARIA Just the same, they just duplicated.COURT The same date.ATTY. STA. MARIA Yes, Your Honor. They utilized the same book, Your Honor, book number, series number, page number.COURT And this defendants Juani and Baluyot are relying on the first document.ATTY. REYES Yes, Your HonorCOURT Not on the second document.ATTY. REYES Not on the second, but we have no hand in the preparation of that second document, Your Honor.COURT But you acquired separate title from this second document.ATTY. REYES Yes, Your Honor. That’s why one of the third party defendant is impleaded in our third party complaint Gonzales. Because the registration of this document was entrusted by Virginia Baluyot to Gonzales for purposes of working it out with the Register of Deeds, instead of using with the document entrusted to her which are then the genuine document, it appears now that another document was executed by Gonzales, hence, the problem now in this case Gonzales used the document my client entrusted to her for purposes of registration. A genuine document could have been registered. That was not the fact why … (interrupted)xxx. ATTY. MANUEL With due respect to Atty. Sta. Maria the perusal of this answer really show that he found that the document is forged documents only he closed back the association of having committed unfortunate to Virginia Baluyot.ATTY. STA. MARIA I do not know that document before, Your Honor, only later when there was an investigation in the Fiscal’s Office that I learned that the document considering that I have seen he first document.COURT So you admit now.ATTY. STA. MARIA Now, I admit that this is furious. (sic)COURT Titles were issuedATTY. REYES Right now, Your Honor.COURT Forged documents.xxx.[18]