ALABAN VS.

CA
470 SCRA 697

FACTS:

On 8 November 2000, respondent Francisco Provido (respondent) filed a petition, for the probate of the
Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado (decedent), who died on 26
October 2000 in Janiuay, Iloilo. Respondent alleged that he was the heir of the decedent and the
executor of her will. On 30 May 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, in P.D. Monfort
North, Dumangas, Iloilo, rendered its Decision, allowing the probate of the will of the decedent and
directing the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.

More than four (4) months later, or on 4 October 2001, herein petitioners filed a motion for the
reopening of the probate proceedings.Likewise, they filed an opposition to the allowance of the will of
the decedent, as well as the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent,claiming that they are the
intestate heirs of the decedent. Petitioners claimed that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition due to non-payment of the correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the
other heirs.

On 11 January 2002, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioners motion for being unmeritorious.
Moreover, the RTCs Decision was already final and executory even before petitioners filing of the
motion to reopen.

Petitioners thereafter filed a petition with an application for preliminary injunction with the CA,
seeking the annulment of the RTCs Decision dated 30 May 2001 and Order dated 11 January 2002.
They claimed that after the death of the decedent, petitioners, together with respondent, held several
conferences to discuss the matter of dividing the estate of the decedent, with respondent agreeing to a
one-sixth (1/6) portion as his share.They argued that the RTC Decision should be annulled and set aside
on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.

In its Resolution promulgated on 28 February 2002, the CA dismissed the petition. The CA declared as
baseless petitioners claim that the proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud. Neither was
there any showing that they availed of this ground in a motion for new trial or petition for relief from
judgment in the RTC, the CA added. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Resolution, but the same
was denied by the CA for lack of merit.
For his part, Respondent likewise maintains that no extrinsic fraud exists to warrant the annulment of
the RTCs Decision, since there was no showing that they were denied their day in court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the judgment of the RTC should be annulled on the ground of fraud as alleged by the
appellant-petitioner.

RULING:

No. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such action is to have the final and
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. It is resorted to in cases where
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based on only two grounds:
extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. A person need not be a party to the
judgment sought to be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his allegation that the
judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby.

An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral
in character. 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 procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is
alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in
court.