This case is about the jurisdiction of the courts on fraud.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

Braulio Conde (Conde), et. al. filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of a parcel
of land. He also filed a petition against Gutierrez (Gutierrez) for fraud. Conde claims that
Gutierrez used fraud to acquire absolute ownership of the properties of Esteban Guiterrez
(Esteban) and Fermina Ramos (Fermina) by succession.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Conde, et. al. initially filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of a parcel of land
before the Court of First Instance in Tarlac (Now Regional Trial Court Branch 64). After a full
blown trial in the RTC Branch 64, Marcello Gutierrez lost the suit and was ordered to pay the
Conde, et. al.

Gutierrez filed a petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) which then reversed the decision
of the RTC ordering Conde, et. al. to deliver the property to Gutierrez. The decision became final
and executory on December 20, 1982.

Conde, et. al. filed a petition before the RTC Branch 56, Third Judicial Region in Capas,
Tarlac to annul the judgment of the CA which was then dismissed for it had no jurisdiction to
annul the judgment of the CA.

Conde, et. al. filed a motion for reconsideration before the respondent court which was
then denied. A petiton for certiorari, mandamus, and a writ of injuction was filled before the
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) and raffled to the Third Special Case Division. The court
dismissed the case for lack of merrit on the grounds that the RTC has no jurisdiction to annul
the IAC.

Finally, Conde, et. al., filed a motion for reconsideration to this court (Supreme Court -
SC) where it was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the courts have acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in dismissing the case of fraud

Ruling:

The Petition is DISMISSED

 There are two kinds of fraud, Intrinsic and Extrinsic. Intrinsic fraud is the presentation of
false documents before the courts, while extrinsic fraud is a fraudulent scheme that would
prevent a party from having his day in court from presenting his/her case.

The CA was correct in determining that the fraud committed by Gutierrez was intrinsic in
nature. Even if the contention of Conde, et. al. were true it would be of no merit because
intrinsic fraud is not sufficient to attack a judgment of the court.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The respondents' counsel, Atty.
Adelaido G. Rivera is fined Five Hundred Pesos (P500) for his failure to act on the order to file
comment.

SO ORDERED.