Remedial Law Case Digest:

SPOUSES GORGONIO BENATIRO and COLUMBA CUYOS-BENATIRO substituted by their heirs, namely: Isabelita, Renato, Rosadelia and Gorgonio, Jr., surnamed Benatiro, and SPOUSES RENATO C. BENATIRO and ROSIE M. BENATIRO , petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS, namely: Gloria Cuyos-Talian, Patrocenia Cuyos- Mijares, Numeriano Cuyos, and Enrique Cuyos, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Salud Cuyos, respondents.

Facts:

Spouses Evaristo Cuyos and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos were blessed with nine children. On August 28, 1966, Evaristo died leaving six parcels of land located in Daanbantayan, Cebu.  On July 13, 1971, one of the heirs, Gloria Cuyos-Talian (respondent Gloria) represented by Atty. Victor Elliot Lepiten (Atty. Lepiten), filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for Letters of Administration. The petition was opposed by Gloria’s brother, Francisco, who was represented by Atty. Jesus Yray (Atty. Yray).

 

In 1973, the parties came to an agreement to settle their case amicably, and the letter of administration was issued in favor to Gloria Cuyos; and Atty Taneo was appointed to act as the Commissioner  to effect the agreement of the parties and to prepare the project of partition for the approval of the court.

 

In 1976, Atty. Taneo stated that he issued subpoenae supplemented by telegrams to all the heirs to cause their appearance on February 28 and 29, 1976 in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu, where the properties are located, for a conference or meeting to arrive at an agreement; that out of the nine heirs, only respondents Gloria, Salud and Enrique Cuyos failed to attend; that per return of the service, these three heirs could not be located in their respective given addresses; that since some of the heirs present resided outside the province of Cebu, they decided to go ahead with the scheduled meeting.

 

Commissioner’s report states that Columba Cuyos-Benatiro (Columba), one of the heirs, informed all those present in the conference of her desire to buy the properties of the estate, to which everybody present agreed, and considered her the buyer.

 

In 1979, Cuyos being the administrator executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 13 over the six parcels of land constituting the intestate estate of the late Evaristo Cuyos in favor of Columba for a consideration of the sum of P36,000.00.

 

In 1998, Gloria, Patrocenia, Numeriano, Enrique and Salud filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of order of CFI Cebu, alleging that the said order was null and void and has no effect, which was patently false and irregular; that such report practically deprived them of due process in claiming their share of their father’s estate, clearly showing that extrinsic fraud caused them to be deprived of their property.

 

The Court of Appeals granted the petition and ruled that the order and certificates made by the Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court issued in the name of Columba Cuyos was null and void.

 

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in annulling the CFI Order dated December 16, 1976, which approved the Commissioner’s Report embodying the alleged compromise agreement entered into by the heirs of Evaristo and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos.

 

Ruling:

The Court ruled on its negative. The remedy of annulment of judgment is extraordinary in character 25 and will not so easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 impose strict conditions for recourse to it. Although Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that annulment of a final judgment or order of an RTC may be based “only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction”, jurisprudence recognizes denial of due process as additional ground therefor.

 

The Court finds that the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the CFI Order dated December 16, 1976, the court finds that it should be annulled not on the ground of extrinsic fraud, as there is no sufficient evidence to hold Atty. Taneo or any of the heirs guilty of fraud, but on the ground that the assailed order is void for lack of due process.

 

Clerk of Court Taneo was appointed to act as Commissioner to effect the agreement of the heirs and to prepare the project of partition for submission and approval of the court. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Taneo to set a time and place for the first meeting of the heirs. In his Commissioner’s Report, Atty. Taneo stated that he caused the appearance of all the heirs of Evaristo Cuyos and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos in the place, where the subject properties were located for settlement, by sending them subpoenae supplemented by telegrams for them to attend the conference scheduled on February 28 to 29, 1976. It was also alleged that out of the nine heirs, only six attended the conference; however, as the CA aptly found, the Commissioner did not state the names of those present, but only those heirs who failed to attend the conference, namely: respondents Gloria, Salud and Enrique who, as stated in the Report, based on the return of service, could not be located in their respective given addresses.

 

Moreover, there was no evidence showing that the heirs indeed convened for the purpose of arriving at an agreement regarding the estate properties, since they were not even required to sign anything to show their attendance of the alleged meeting. In fact, the Commissioner’s Report, which embodied the alleged agreement of the heirs, did not bear the signatures of the alleged attendees to show their consent and conformity thereto.

 

Further, the court stated that it is the respondents’ right to due process is the paramount consideration in annulling the assailed order. It bears stressing that an action to declare the nullity of a void judgment does not prescribe.

 

Finally, considering that the assailed CFI judgment is void, it has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non- existent. Hence, the execution of the Deed of Sale by Lope in favor of Columba pursuant to said void judgment, the issuance of titles pursuant to said Deed of Sale, and the subsequent transfers are void ab initio. No reversible error was thus committed by the CA in annulling the judgment.

 

Takeaway: As a rule, a void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.