545 Phil. 425
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
x x x xOn April 5, 2001, two years from issuance of the PARAD Decision, Fraginal, et al. filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order.[6] They insisted that the PARAD Decision is void as it was issued without jurisdiction.
Our perusal of [the] records shows that the defendants so-called documentary evidence as proof that the landholding cultivated by them is classified as public land contrary to the claims of herein plaintiffs is a mere scrap of paper. First, although it states that a certain area situated at Pili, Camarines Sur is declared as alienable and disposable for cropland and other purposes, yet, it does not specifically state through technical description or whatever the exact area of coverage, its location as well as the boundaries, hence, we cannot be sure or we have no way of knowing whether the subject property is part and parcel of that covered area. Second, it states that the list of occupants or claimants therein is attached to said document, however, a close scrutiny of the same reveals that it contains only one page without any attachment particularly the alleged list of claimants. Therefore, there is no proof that defendants are indeed one of the claimants listed therein. From here it can be inferred that such document was presented merely to confuse the Board in their attempt to gain favorable judgment. Moreover, we are far from convinced that defendants' other allegations are tenable not only because they are self-serving but also for being irrelevant to the issue at bar. The same allegations and arguments have been raised or asserted merely to resist the demands of the plaintiffs particularly on their ejectment from the questioned landholding especially that all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs have never been effectively refuted by the defendants.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) Ordering the termination of the Agricultural Leasehold Contract (Contrata sa Pag-Arquila nin Dagang Agricultural) dated January 7, 1997 entered into by and between herein parties;
2) Ordering all the defendants, their heirs and assigns to vacate the premises immediately upon receipt of this decision;
3) Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs the total of 54 cavans of palay at 46 kls. per cavan representing the arrear rentals for the entire year of 1997 until the filing of this case on June 26, 1998, including succeeding lease rentals as it falls due until they finally vacate the premises; and
4) Ordering the defendants to desist from further disturbing [the] herein plaintiffs in their peaceful possession and cultivation of their landholdings subject of the instant action.
SO ORDERED.[5]
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Revised Rules of Court may be availed of to have judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts annulled. Also, Rule 47 requires that recourse thereto may be had only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.The CA also denied the Motion for Reconsideration[9] of Fraginal, et al. in the assailed Resolution[10] dated September 3, 2001.
The petitioners ratiocinated [sic] this instant recourse for their failure to avail of the remedy provided for under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, without fault (Rollo, p. 4). However, the petition fails to offer any explanation as to how it lost that remedy except for its claim that they failed to avail of Rule 65 without any fault on their part. And even if We are to grant it arguendo, Rule 47 being exclusive to judgments and final orders and resolution in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts is not available to the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and ordered DISMISSED.[8]
It is only the second issue which is pivotal.I.
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition filed before it for annulment of judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as the land is a public agricultural land.II.
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that Rule 47 of the Rules of Court pertains only to judgment or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of the Regional Trial Court.[11]
Section 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.
Section 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.The Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by Fraginal, et al. before the CA failed to meet the foregoing conditions.
Rule 47, entitled "Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions," is a new provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur by the courts. The rule covers "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 could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner."An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered. The concern that the remedy could so easily be resorted to as an instrument to delay a final and executory judgment, has prompted safeguards to be put in place in order to avoid an abuse of the rule. Thus, the annulment of judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and the remedy may not be invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost therefrom, or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.Second, Section 1, Rule 47 does not allow a direct recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment if other appropriate remedies are available, such as a petition for new trial, and a petition for relief from judgment or an appeal.[23]
x x x x
x x x The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments. [22] (Emphasis ours)
It does not allow for a petition for annnulment of a final PARAD Decision.Rule XIII
Section 1. Appeal to the Board. a) An appeal may be taken from an order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, orally or in writing, within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order, resolution or decsion appealed from, and serving a copy thereof on the adverse party, if the appeal is in writing.
b) An oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the Adjudicator to be signed by the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the adverse party within ten (10) days from the taking of the oral appeal.
9. Prior to the filing of this instant action, the petitioners, without fault, failed to avail of the remedy provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, appeal the questioned decision and to file the corresponding petition for relief from judgment, due to time constraint and want of sources as to when the questioned decision be appropriately done as they were not assisted by counself from the very beginning of the proceedings.[24]Such pretext is unacceptable.