RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

SPOUSESGORGONIOBENATIRO G.R.No.161220
andCOLUMBACUYOSBENATIRO
substitutedbytheirheirs,namely:
Isabelita,Renato,Rosadeliaand
Gorgonio,Jr.,surnamedBenatiro,and
SPOUSESRENATOC.BENATIROand Present:
ROSIEM.BENATIRO,
Respondents,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
versus Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
HEIRSOFEVARISTOCUYOS, CHICONAZARIO
namely:GloriaCuyosTalian, NACHURA,and
PatroceniaCuyosMijares, REYES,JJ.
NumerianoCuyos,andEnriqueCuyos,
representedbytheirattorneyinfact,
SaludCuyos,
Promulgated:
Respondents. July30,2008
xx

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
[1]
petitionersseekingtoannultheDecision datedJuly18,2003oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)andits
[2]
Resolution datedNovember13,2003 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration issued in CA
[3]
G.R.SPNo.65630.

 SpousesEvaristoCuyosandAgatonaArroganteCuyoswereblessedwithninechildren,namely:
Francisco,Victoria,Columba,Lope,Salud,Gloria,Patrocenia,Numeriano,andEnrique.On August 28,
1966,EvaristodiedleavingsixparcelsoflandlocatedinTapilon,Daanbantayan,Cebu covered by Tax
Declaration(TD)Nos.000725,000728,000729,000730,000731,000732,allunderthenameofAgatona
Arrogante.

OnJuly13,1971,oneoftheheirs,GloriaCuyosTalian(respondentGloria)representedbyAtty.
VictorElliotLepiten(Atty.Lepiten),filedbeforetheCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)nowRegionalTrial
[4]
Court (RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, a petition for Letters of Administration, docketed as Special
Proceeding(SP)No.24BNentitledIntheMatteroftheIntestateEstateofEvaristoCuyos,GloriaCuyos
Talian,petitioner.ThepetitionwasopposedbyGloriasbrother,Francisco,whowasrepresentedbyAtty.
JesusYray(Atty.Yray).

In the hearing held on January 30, 1973, both parties together with their respective counsels
appeared.Bothcounselsmanifestedthatthepartieshadcometoanagreementtosettletheircase.Thetrial
[5]
courtonevendateissuedanOrder appointingGloriaasadministratrixoftheestate.Thedispositive
portionreads:

WHEREFORE,lettersofadministrationoftheestateofthelateEvaristoCuyosandincludingthe
undividedhalfaccruingtohisspouseAgatonaArrogantewhorecentlydiedisherebyissuedinfavorofMrs.
[6]
GloriaCuyosTalianwhomayqualifyassuchadministratrixafterpostinganominalbondofP1,000.00.

[7]
Subsequently, in the Order datedDecember12,1975, the CFI stated that when the Intestate
Estatehearingwascalledonthatdate,respondentGloriaandherbrother,oppositorFrancisco,together
withtheirrespectivecounsels,appearedthatAtty.Yray,Franciscoscounsel,manifestedthattheparties
had come to an agreement to settle the case amicably that both counsels suggested that the Clerk of
Court,Atty.AndresC.Taneo(Atty.Taneo),beappointedtoactasCommissionertoeffecttheagreement
ofthepartiesandtopreparetheprojectofpartitionfortheapprovalofthecourt.InthesameOrder,the
CourtofFirstInstance(CFI)appointedAtty.Taneoandorderedhimtomakeaprojectofpartitionwithin
30daysfromDecember12,1975forsubmissionandapprovalofthecourt.
[8]
InhisCommissioner'sReport datedJuly29,1976,Atty.Taneostatedthatheissuedsubpoenae
supplemented by telegrams to all the heirs to cause theirappearance on February 28 and 29, 1976 in
Tapilon,Daanbantayan,Cebu,wherethepropertiesarelocated,foraconferenceormeetingtoarriveatan
agreementthatoutofthenineheirs,onlyrespondentsGloria,SaludandEnriqueCuyosfailedtoattend
thatperreturnoftheservice,thesethreeheirscouldnotbelocatedintheirrespectivegivenaddressesthat
sincesomeoftheheirspresentresidedoutsidetheprovinceofCebu,theydecidedtogoaheadwiththe
scheduledmeeting.

Atty.TaneodeclaredinhisReportthattheheirswhowerepresent:

1.AgreedtoconsiderallincomeofthepropertiesoftheestateduringthetimethatFranciscoCuyos,one
of the heirs, was administering the properties of the estate (without appointment from the Court) as
havingbeenproperlyanddulyaccountedfor.

2.AgreedtoconsiderallincomeofthepropertiesoftheestateduringtheadministrationofGloriaCuyos
Talian,(dulyappointedbytheCourt)alsooneoftheheirsashavingbeenproperlyanddulyaccounted
for.

3. AgreedtoconsiderallmotionsfiledinthisproceedingsdemandinganaccountingfromFrancisco
CuyosandGloriaCuyosTalian,ashavingbeenwithdrawn.

4. Agreednottopartitionthepropertiesoftheestatebutinsteadagreedtofirstsellitforthesumof
P40,000.00 subject to the condition that should any of the heirs would be in a position to buy the
properties of the estate, the rest of the eight (8) heirs will just receive only Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000.00)each.

5.Agreedtoequallydividetheadministrationexpensestobedeductedfromtheirrespectiveshareof
[9]
P4,000.00.

TheReportfurtherstatedthatColumbaCuyosBenatiro(Columba),oneoftheheirs,informedall
thosepresentintheconferenceofherdesiretobuythepropertiesoftheestate,towhicheverybodypresent
agreed,andconsideredherthebuyer.Atty.TaneoexplainedthatthedelayinthesubmissionoftheReport
wasduetotherequestofrespondentGloriathatshebegivenenoughtimetomakesomeconsultationson
whatwasalreadyagreeduponbythemajorityoftheheirsthatitwasonlyonJuly11,1976thattheletter
of respondent Gloria was handed to Atty. Taneo, with the information that respondent Gloria was
amenabletowhathadbeenagreedupon,providedshebegiventhesumofP5,570.00ashershareofthe
estate, since one of properties of the estate was mortgaged to her in order to defray their father's
hospitalization.

[10]
Quoting the Commissioners Report, the CFI issued the assailed Order datedDecember 16,
1976,thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:

WHEREFORE,findingthetermsandconditionsagreeduponbytheheirstobeinorder,thesamebeingnot
contrary to law, said compromise agreement as embodied in the report of the commissioner is hereby
approved.TheCourtherebyorderstheAdministratrixtoexecutethedeedofsalecoveringalltheproperties
oftheestateinfavorofColumbaCuyosBenatiroafterthepaymenttoherofthesumofP36,000.00.Thesaid
 sumofmoneyshallremainincustodialegis,butafteralltheclaimsandadministrationexpensesandthe
estatetaxesshallhavebeenpaidfor,theremaindershall,uponorderoftheCourt,bedividedequallyamong
[11]
theheirs.

TheCFIdisapprovedtheclaimofrespondentGloriaforthesumofP5,570.00,asthesamehad
beenallegedlydisregardedbytheheirspresentduringtheconference.

[12]
In an Order dated January 11, 1978, the CFI appointed Lope Cuyos (Cuyos) as the new
administrator of the estate, purportedly on the basis of the motion to relieve respondent Gloria, as it
appearedthatshewasalreadyresidinginCentralLuzonandherabsencewasdetrimentaltotheearly
terminationoftheproceedings.

[13]
OnMay25,1979,administratorCuyosexecutedaDeedofAbsoluteSale overthesixparcels
oflandconstitutingtheintestateestateofthelateEvaristoCuyosinfavorofColumbaforaconsideration
ofthesumofP36,000.00.

SometimeinFebruary1998,theheirsofEvaristoCuyos,namely:GloriaCuyosTalian,Patrocenia
CuyosMijares,NumerianoCuyosandEnriqueCuyos,representedbytheirattorneyinfact,SaludCuyos
(respondents),allegedlylearnedthatTaxDeclarationNos.000725,000728,000729,000730,000731and
000732,whichwereallinthenameoftheirlatemotherAgatonaArrogante,werecanceledandnewTax
Declaration Nos., namely, 2014129, 2014130, 20141131, 2014132, 2014133 and 2014134, were
issuedinColumbasnameandthatlateron,OriginalCertificatesofTitlescoveringtheestateofEvaristo
CuyoswereissuedinfavorofColumbathatsomeoftheseparcelsoflandweresubsequentlytransferred
tothenamesofspousesRenatoC.BenatiroandRosieM.Benatiro,sonanddaughterinlaw,respectively,
ofpetitionersGorgonioandColumba,forwhichtransfercertificatesoftitleweresubsequentlyissuedthat
theysubsequentlydiscoveredtheexistenceoftheassailedCFIOrderdatedDecember16,1976andthe
DeedofAbsoluteSaledatedMay25,1979.

RespondentsfiledacomplaintagainstpetitionerGorgonioBenatirobeforetheCommissiononthe
SettlementofLandProblems(COSLAP)oftheDepartmentofJustice,whichonJune13,2000dismissed
[14]
thecaseforlackofjurisdiction.

 Salud Cuyos brought the matter for conciliation and mediation at the barangay level, but was
[15]
unsuccessful.

[16]
OnJuly16,2001,SaludCuyos,forherselfandinrepresentation oftheotherheirsofEvaristo
[17]
Cuyos,namely:Gloria,Patrocenia,Numeriano, andEnrique,filedwiththeCAapetitionforannulment
oftheOrderdatedDecember16,1976oftheCFIofCebu,BranchXI,inSPNo.24BNunderRule47of
theRulesofCourt.TheyallegedthattheCFIOrderdatedDecember16,1976wasnullandvoidandofno
effect,thesamebeingbasedonaCommissioner'sReport,whichwaspatentlyfalseandirregularthat
suchreportpracticallydeprivedthemofdueprocessinclaimingtheirshareoftheirfather'sestatethat
PatroceniaCuyosMijaresexecutedanaffidavit,aswellastheunnotarizedstatementofGloriastatingthat
nomeetingevertookplaceforthepurposeofdiscussinghowtodisposeoftheestateoftheirparentsand
thattheyneverreceivedanypaymentfromthesupposedsaleoftheirshareintheinheritancethatthe
report was done in close confederacy with their coheir Columba, who stood to be benefited by the
Commissioner'srecommendation,shouldthesamebeapprovedbytheprobatecourtthatsincethereport
wasafalsity,anyorderproceedingtherefromwasinvalidthattheissuanceofthecertificatesoftitlesin
favorofrespondentsweretaintedwithfraudandirregularity,sincetheCFIwhichissuedtheassailedorder
did not appear tohave been furnished a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale that the CFI was not in
custodialegisoftheconsiderationofthesale,asdirectedinitsOrdersothatitcoulddividetheremainder
oftheconsiderationequallyamongtheheirsafterpayingalltheadministrationexpensesandestatetaxes
thattheintestatecasehadnotyetbeenterminatedasthelastorderfoundrelativetothecasewasthe
appointmentofLopeasadministratorviceGloriathattheyneverreceivedtheircorrespondingsharein
theinheritanceandthattheactofpetitionersinmanifestconnivancewithadministratorLopeamounted
toadenialoftheirrighttothepropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw,thus,clearlyshowingthatextrinsic
fraudcausedthemtobedeprivedoftheirproperty.

Hereinpetitionerscontendthatrespondents'allegationthattheydiscoveredtheassailedorderdated
December16,1976onlyinFebruary1998waspreposterous,asrespondentswererepresentedbycounselin
theintestateproceedingsthus,noticeofOrdertocounselwasnoticetoclientthatthiswasonlyaployso
thattheycouldclaimthattheyfiledthepetitionforannulmentwithinthestatutoryperiodoffour(4)years
thattheyhavebeeninpossessionofthesixparcelsoflandsinceMay25,1979whenthesamewassoldto
them pursuant to the assailed Order in the intestate proceedings that no extrinsic fraud attended the
issuance of the assailed order that Numeriano executed an affidavit in which he attested to having
receivedhisshareofthesaleproceedsonMay18,1988thatrespondentswereestoppedfromassailing
theOrderdatedDecember16,1976,asithadalreadyattainedthestatusoffinality.

OnJuly18,2003,theCAgrantedthepetitionandannulledtheCFIorder,thedispositiveportionof
whichreads:

FORALLTHEFOREGOINGREASONS,theinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTED.Accordingly,
theOrderissuedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofCebuBranchXIdatedDecember16,1976aswellasthe
CertificatesofTitleissuedinthenameofColumbaCuyosBenatiro and the subsequent transfer of these
TitlesinthenameofspousesRenatoandRosieBenatiroareherebyANNULLEDandSETASIDE.Further,
[18]
SPProc.CaseNo.24BNisherebyorderedreopenedandproceedingsthereonbecontinued.

The CA declared that the ultimate fact that was needed to be established was the veracity and
truthfulnessoftheCommissionersReport,whichwasusedbythetrialcourtasitsbasisfor issuing the
assailedOrder.TheCAheldthattoarriveatanagreement,therewasaneedforalltheconcernedpartiesto
bepresentintheconferencehowever,suchwasnotthescenariosinceintheirseparateswornstatements,
the compulsory heirs of the decedent attested to the fact that no meeting or conference ever happened
amongthemthatalthoughunderSection3(m),Rule133ontheRulesofEvidence,thereisapresumption
ofregularityintheperformanceofanofficialduty,thesamemaybecontradictedandovercomebyother
evidencetoprovethecontrary.

TheCAnotedsomeparticularsthatledittoconcludethattheconferencewasnotheldaccordingly,
to wit: (1) the Commissioners Report never mentioned the namesof the heirs who were present in the
alleged conference but only the names of those who were absent, when the names of those who were
presentwereequallyessential,ifnotevenmoreimportant,thanthenamesofthosewhowereabsent(2)the
Reportalsofailedtoincludeanyproofofconformitytotheagreementfromtheattendees,suchasletting
themsignthereporttosignifytheirconsentasregardstheagreedmechanismsfortheestatessettlement(3)
therewaslackorabsenceofphysicalevidenceattachedtothereportindicatingthattherespondentswere
indeedproperlynotifiedaboutthescheduledconference.TheCAthenconcludedthatduetotheabsenceof
therespondents'consent,thelegalexistenceofthecompromiseagreementdidnotstandonafirmground.
TheCAfurtherobservedthatalthoughitappearedthatnoticeofthereportwasgiventoAtty.Lepiten
andAtty.Yray,lawyersofGloriaandFranciscoCuyos,respectively,thesamecannotbetakenasnoticeto
theotherheirsofEvaristoCuyosthatalawyersauthoritytocompromisecannotbesimplypresumed,since
what was required was the special authority to compromise on behalf of his client that a compromise
agreemententeredintobyapersonnotdulyauthorizedtodosobytheprincipalisvoidandhasnolegal
 [19]
effect,citingQuibanv.Butalid thatbeingavoidcompromiseagreement,theassailedOrderhadno
legaleffect.

Thus, the CA ruled that the Certificates of Titles obtained by herein petitioners were procured
fraudulentlythattheinitialtransferofthepropertiestoColumbaCuyosBenatirobyvirtueofaDeedof
Absolute Sale executed by Lope Cuyos was clearly defective, since the compromise agreement which
servedasthebasisoftheDeedofAbsoluteSalewasvoidandhadnolegaleffect.

TheCAelaboratedthattherewasnoshowingthatColumbapaidthesumofP36,000.00tothe
administratorasconsiderationforthesale,exceptforthetestimonyofNumerianoCuyosadmittingthathe
receivedhisshareoftheproceedsbutwithoutindicatingtheexactamountthathereceivedthatevenso,
such alleged payment was incomplete and was not in compliance with the trial courts order for the
administratixtoexecutethedeedofsalecoveringallpropertiesoftheestateinfavorofColumbaCuyos
BenatiroafterthepaymenttotheadministratrixofthesumofP36,000.00thatsaidsumofmoneyshall
remainincustodialegis,butafteralltheclaimsandadministrationexpensesandtheestatetaxesshall
havebeenpaidfor,theremaindershall,uponorderoftheCourt,bedividedequallyamongtheheirs.

Moreover,theCAfoundthatthecopyoftheDeedofSalewasnotevenfurnishedthetrialcourt
norwassaidmoneyplacedundercustodialegisasagreeduponthattheCertificationdatedDecember9,
1998issuedbytheClerkofCourtofCebuindicatedthatthecasehadnotyetbeenterminatedandthatthe
lastOrderinthespecialproceedingwastheappointmentofLopeCuyosasthenewadministratorofthe
estatethus,thetransferoftheparcelsofland,whichincludedtheexecutionoftheDeedofAbsoluteSale,
cancellationofTaxDeclarationsandtheissuanceofnewTaxDeclarationsandTransferCertificatesof
Title, all in favor of petitioners, were tainted with fraud. Consequently, the CA concluded that the
compromiseagreement,thecertificatesoftitleandthetransfersmadebypetitionersthroughfraudcannot
bemadealegalbasisoftheirownershipovertheproperties,sincetodosowouldresultinenrichingthem
attheexpenseoftherespondentsandthatitwasalsoevidentthatthefraudattendantinthiscasewasone
ofextrinsicfraud,sincerespondentsweredeniedtheopportunitytofullylitigatetheircasebecauseofthe
schemeutilizedbypetitionerstoasserttheirclaim.

Hence,hereinpetitionraisingthefollowingissues:

WhetherornotannulmentoforderunderRule47oftheRulesofCourtwasaproperremedywhere
theaggrievedpartyhadotherappropriateremedies,suchasnewtrial,appeal,orpetitionforrelief,whichthey
failedtotakethroughtheirownfault.

 WhetherornottheCourtofAppealsmisapprehendedthefactswhenitannulledthe24yearold
Commissioner'sReportoftheClerkofCourtanofficialactwhichenjoysastrongpresumptionofregularity
basedmerelyonbelatedallegationsofirregularitiesintheperformanceofsaidofficialact.
WhetherornotuponthefactsasfoundbytheCourtofAppealsinthiscase,extrinsicfraudexisted
[20]
whichisasufficientgroundtoannulthelowercourt'sorderunderRule47oftheRulesofCourt.

Subsequent to the filing of their petition, petitioners filed a Manifestation that they were in
[21]
possessionofaffidavitsofwaiveranddesistanceexecutedbytheheirsofLopeCuyos andrespondent
[22]
Patrocenia CuyosMijares on February 17, 2004 and December 17, 2004, respectively. In both
affidavits,theaffiantsstatedthattheyhadnomoreinterestinprosecuting/defendingthecaseinvolvingthe
settlementoftheestate,sincethesubjectestatepropertieshadbeenboughtbytheirlatesisterColumba,
and they had already received their share of the purchase price. Another heir, respondent Numeriano
[23]
Cuyos,hadalsoearlierexecutedanAffidavit datedDecember13,2001,statingthatthesubjectestate
wassoldtoColumbaandthatshehadalreadyreceivedhershareofthepurchasepriceonMay18,1988.
[24]
Inaddition,Numerianohadissuedacertification datedMay18,1988,whichwasnotrefutedbyany
oftheparties,thathehadalreadyreceivedP4,000.00inpaymentofhisshare,whichcouldbethereason
whyherefusedtosigntheSpecialPowerofAttorneysupposedlyinfavorofSaludCuyosforthefilingof
thepetitionwiththeCA.

TheissueforresolutioniswhethertheCAcommittedareversibleerrorinannullingtheCFIOrder
dated December 16, 1976, which approved the Commissioners Report embodying the alleged
compromiseagreemententeredintobytheheirsofEvaristoandAgatonaArroganteCuyos.

Weruleinthenegative.

[25]
Theremedyofannulmentofjudgmentisextraordinaryincharacter andwillnotsoeasilyand
readilylenditselftoabusebypartiesaggrievedbyfinaljudgments.Sections1and2ofRule47imposestrict
conditionsforrecoursetoit,viz.:

Section1.Coverage.ThisRuleshallgoverntheannulmentbytheCourtofAppealsofjudgmentsor
finalordersandresolutionsincivilactionsofRegionalTrialCourtsforwhichtheordinaryremediesofnew
trial,appeal,petitionforrelieforotherappropriateremediesarenolongeravailablethroughnofaultofthe
petitioner.

Section2.Groundsforannulment.Theannulmentmaybebasedonlyonthegroundsofextrinsic
fraudandlackofjurisdiction.

 Extrinsicfraudshallnotbeavalidgroundifitwasavailedof,orcouldhavebeenavailedof,ina
motionfornewtrialorpetitionforrelief.

AlthoughSection2ofRule47oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatannulmentofafinaljudgmentor
order of an RTC may be based "only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,"
[26]
jurisprudencerecognizesdenialofdueprocessasadditional.groundtherefor.

Anactiontoannulafinaljudgmentonthegroundoffraudwilllieonlyifthefraudisextrinsicor
[27]
collateralincharacter. Extrinsicfraudexistswhenthereisafraudulentactcommittedbytheprevailing
partyoutsideofthetrialofthecase,wherebythedefeatedpartywaspreventedfrompresentingfullyhisside
[28]
ofthecasebyfraudordeceptionpracticedonhimbytheprevailingparty. Fraudisregardedasextrinsic
whereitpreventsapartyfromhavingatrialorfrompresentinghisentirecasetothecourt,orwhereit
operatesuponmatterspertainingnottothejudgmentitselfbuttothemannerinwhichitisprocured.The
overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing
[29]
litigantpreventedapartyfromhavinghisdayincourt.
WhilewefindthattheCAcorrectlyannulledtheCFIOrderdatedDecember16,1976,wefindthatit
shouldbeannullednotonthegroundofextrinsicfraud,asthereisnosufficientevidencetoholdAtty.Taneo
oranyoftheheirsguiltyoffraud,butonthegroundthattheassailedorderisvoidforlackofdueprocess.

ClerkofCourtTaneowasappointedtoactasCommissionertoeffecttheagreementoftheheirsand
topreparetheprojectofpartitionforsubmissionandapprovalofthecourt.Thus,itwasincumbentupon
Atty.Taneotosetatimeandplaceforthefirstmeetingoftheheirs.InhisCommissionersReport,Atty.
TaneostatedthathecausedtheappearanceofalltheheirsofEvaristoCuyosandAgatonaArroganteCuyos
in the place, where the subject properties were located for settlement, by sending them subpoenae
supplementedbytelegramsforthemtoattendtheconferencescheduledonFebruary28to29,1976.Itwas
alsoallegedthatoutofthenineheirs,onlysixattendedtheconferencehowever,astheCAaptlyfound,the
Commissioner did not state the names of those present, but only those heirs who failed to attend the
conference,namely:respondentsGloria,SaludandEnriquewho,asstatedintheReport,basedonthereturn
ofservice,couldnotbelocatedintheirrespectivegivenaddresses.

However, there is nothing in the records that would establish that the alleged subpoenae,
supplementedbytelegrams,fortheheirstoappearinthescheduledconferencewereindeedsenttotheheirs.
In fact, respondent Patrocenia CuyosMijares, one of the heirs, who was presumably present in the
 [30]
conference,asshewasnotmentionedasamongthoseabsent,hadexecutedanaffidavit datedDecember
8,1998attesting,tothefactthatshewasnotcalledtoameetingnorwasthereanytelegramornoticeofany
meetingreceivedbyher.WhilePatroceniahadexecutedonDecember17,2004anAffidavitofWaiverand
[31]
Desistance regardingthiscase,itwasonlyforthereasonthatthesubjectestatepropertieshadbeen
bought by their late sister Columba, and that she had already received her corresponding share of the
purchaseprice,buttherewasnothingintheaffidavitthatretractedherpreviousstatementthatshewasnot
[32]
calledtoameeting.RespondentGloriaalsomadeanunnotarizedstatement thattherewasnomeeting
held.Thus,theveracityofAtty.Taneosholdingofaconferencewiththeheirswasdoubtful.
Moreover,therewasnoevidenceshowingthattheheirsindeedconvenedforthepurposeofarriving
atanagreementregardingtheestateproperties,sincetheywerenotevenrequiredtosignanythingtoshow
theirattendanceoftheallegedmeeting.Infact,theCommissioner'sReport,whichembodiedthealleged
agreement of the heirs, did not bear the signatures of the alleged attendees to show their consent and
conformitythereto.

It bears stressing that the purpose of the conference was for the heirs to arrive at a compromise
agreementovertheestateofEvaristoCuyos.Thus,itwasimperativethatalltheheirsmustbepresentinthe
conference and be heard to afford them the opportunity to protect their interests. Considering that no
separateinstrumentofconveyancewasexecutedamongtheheirsembodyingtheirallegedagreement,itwas
necessarythattheReportbesignedbytheheirstoprovethataconferenceamongtheheirswasindeedheld,
andthattheyconformedtotheagreementstatedintheReport.

PetitionerspointoutthattheCommissionerwasanofficerofthecourtandadisinterestedpartyand
that,underRule133,Section3(m)oftheRulesonEvidence,thereisapresumptionthatofficialdutyhas
beenregularlyperformed.

While,underthegeneralrule,itistobepresumedthateverythingdonebyanofficerinconnection
withtheperformanceofanofficialactinthelineofhisdutywaslegallydone,suchpresumptionmaybe
overcomebyevidencetothecontrary.WefindtheinstancesmentionedbytheCA,suchasabsenceofthe
namesofthepersonspresentintheconference,absenceofthesignaturesoftheheirsintheCommissioner's
Report,aswellasabsenceofevidenceshowingthatrespondentswerenotifiedoftheconference,tobe
competentproofsofirregularitythatrebutthepresumption.

 Thus,wefindnoreversibleerrorcommittedbytheCAinrulingthattheconferencewasnotheld
accordinglyandinannullingtheassailedorderoftheCFI.

[33]
PetitionersattachedaCertification datedAugust7,2003issuedbytheOfficerInCharge(OIC),
BranchClerkofCourtoftheRTC,Branch11,toshowthatcopiesoftheCommissionersReportweresent
toalltheheirs,exceptSaludandEnrique,aswellastoAttys.LepitenandYrayasenumeratedintheNotice
[34]
foundatthelowerportionoftheReportwiththeaccompanyingregistryreceipts.

[35]
InCuav.Vargas, inwhichtheissuewaswhetherheirsweredeemedconstructivelynotifiedof
andboundbyanextrajudicialsettlementandpartitionoftheestate,regardlessoftheirfailuretoparticipate
therein,whentheextrajudicialsettlementandpartitionhasbeendulypublished,weheld:

TheprocedureoutlinedinSection1ofRule74isanexparteproceeding.Theruleplainly
states,however,thatpersonswhodonotparticipateorhadnonoticeofanextrajudicialsettlementwill
notbeboundthereby.Itcontemplatesanoticethathasbeensentoutorissuedbeforeanydeedof
settlementand/orpartitionisagreedupon(i.e.,anoticecallingallinterestedpartiestoparticipatein
thesaiddeedofextrajudicialsettlementandpartition),andnotaftersuchanagreementhasalready
been executed as what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of
extrajudicialsettlementamongheirs.

Thepublicationofthesettlementdoesnotconstituteconstructivenoticetotheheirswhohadno
knowledgeordidnottakepartinitbecausethesamewasnoticeafterthefactofexecution.Therequirement
ofpublicationisgearedfortheprotectionofcreditorsandwasneverintendedtodepriveheirsoftheirlawful
participation in the decedent's estate. In this connection, the records of the present case confirm that
respondentsneversignedeitherofthesettlementdocuments,havingdiscoveredtheirexistenceonlyshortly
beforethefilingofthepresentcomplaint.FollowingRule74,theseextrajudicialsettlementsdonotbind
respondents, and the partition made without their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as they are
[36]
concerned (Emphasissupplied)
Applying the abovementioned case by analogy, what matters is whether the heirs were indeed
notifiedbeforethecompromiseagreementwasarrivedat,whichwasnotestablished,andnotwhether
theywerenotifiedoftheCommissioner'sReportembodyingtheallegedagreementafterwards.

We also find nothing in the records that would show that the heirs were called to a hearing to
validatetheReport.TheCFIadoptedandapprovedtheReportdespitetheabsenceofthesignaturesofall
theheirsshowingconformitythereto.TheCFIadoptedtheReportdespitethestatementthereinthatonly
sixoutofthenineheirsattendedtheconference,thus,effectivelydeprivingtheotherheirsoftheirchance
tobeheard.TheCFI'sactionwastantamounttoaviolationoftheconstitutionalguaranteethatnoperson
shallbedeprivedofpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.WefindthattheassailedOrderdatedDecember
16,1976,whichapprovedavoidCommissioner'sReport,isavoidjudgmentforlackofdueprocess.

We are not persuaded by petitioners contentions that all the parties in the intestate estate
proceedings in the trial court were duly represented by respective counsels, namely, Atty. Lepiten for
petitionersheirs and Atty. Yray for the oppositorsheirs that when the heirs agreed to settle the case
amicably,theymanifestedsuchintentionthroughtheirlawyers,asstatedintheOrderdatedJanuary30,
1973 that an heir in the settlement of the estate of a deceased person need not hire his own lawyer,
becausehisinterestintheestateisrepresentedbythejudicialadministratorwhoretainstheservicesofa
counselthatajudicialadministratoristhelegalrepresentativenotonlyoftheestatebutalsooftheheirs,
legatees,andcreditorswhoseinterestherepresentsthatwhenthetrialcourtissuedtheassailedOrder
datedDecember16,1976approvingtheCommissioner'sReport,thepartieslawyersweredulyserved
[37]
saidcopiesoftheOrderonDecember21,1976asshownbytheCertification datedAugust7,2003of
theRTCOIC,ClerkofCourtthatnoticestolawyersshouldbeconsiderednoticestotheclients,since,ifa
partyisrepresentedbycounsel,serviceofnoticesofordersandpleadingsshallbemadeuponthelawyer
thatuponreceiptofsuchorderbycounsels,anyoneoftherespondentscouldhavetakentheappropriate
remedysuchasamotionforreconsideration,amotionfornewtrialorapetitionforreliefunderRule38at
thepropertime,buttheyfailedtodosowithoutgivinganycogentreasonforsuchfailure.

Whilethetrialcourt'sorderapprovingtheCommissionersReportwasreceivedbyAttys.Yrayand
Lepiten,theywerethelawyersofGloriaandFrancisco,respectively,butnotthelawyersoftheotherheirs.
Ascanbeseenfromthepleadingsfiledbeforetheprobatecourt,Atty.LepitenwasGloriascounselwhen
shefiledherPetitionforlettersofadministration,whileAtty.YraywasFranciscoslawyerwhenhefiled
hisoppositiontothepetitionforlettersofadministrationandhisMotiontoOrderadministrarixGloriato
renderanaccountingandforthepartitionoftheestate.Thus,theotherheirswhowerenotrepresentedby
counselwerenotgivenanynoticeofthejudgmentapprovingthecompromise.Itwasonlysometimein
February1998thatrespondentslearnedthatthetaxdeclarationscoveringtheparcelsofland,whichwere
allinthenameoftheirlatemotherAgatonaArrogante,werecanceledandnewTaxDeclarationswere
issued in Columbas name, and Original Certificates of Titles were subsequently issued in favor of
Columba.Thus,theycouldnothavetakenanappealorotherremedies.

Considering that the assailed Order is a void judgment for lack of due process of law, it is no
[38]
judgmentatall.Itcannotbethesourceofanyrightorofanyobligation.

[39]
InNazarenov.CourtofAppeals, westatedtheconsequencesofavoidjudgment,thus:

Avoidjudgmentneveracquiresfinality.Hence,whileadmittedly,thepetitionerinthecaseatbar
failedtoappealtimelytheaforementioneddecisionoftheMunicipalTrialCourtofNaic,Cavite,itcannotbe
deemedtohavebecomefinalandexecutory.Incontemplationoflaw,thatvoiddecisionisdeemednon
existent.Thus,therewasnoeffectiveoroperativejudgmenttoappealfrom.InMetropolitanWaterworks&
SewerageSystemvs.Sison,thisCourtheldthat:

xxx[A]voidjudgmentisnotentitledtotherespectaccordedtoavalidjudgment,butmaybe
entirelydisregardedordeclaredinoperativebyanytribunalinwhicheffectissoughttobegiventoit.Itis
attendedbynoneoftheconsequencesofavalidadjudication.Ithasnolegalorbindingeffectorefficacyfor
anypurposeoratanyplace.Itcannotaffect,impairorcreaterights.Itisnotentitledtoenforcementandis,
ordinarily,noprotectiontothosewhoseektoenforce.Allproceedingsfoundedonthevoidjudgmentare
themselvesregardedasinvalid.Inotherwords,avoidjudgmentisregardedasanullity,andthesituationis
thesameasitwouldbeiftherewerenojudgment.It,accordingly,leavesthepartieslitigantsinthesame
positiontheywereinbeforethetrial.

Thus, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any
obligation.Allactsperformedpursuanttoitandallclaimsemanatingfromithavenolegaleffect.Hence,it
canneverbecomefinalandanywritofexecutionbasedonitisvoid:"xxxitmaybesaidtobealawless
thingwhichcanbetreatedasanoutlawandslainatsight,orignoredwhereverandwheneveritexhibitsits
[40]
head. (Emphasissupplied)

TheCFI'sorderbeingnullandvoid,itmaybeassailedanytime,collaterallyorinadirectactionor
byresistingsuchjudgmentorfinalorderinanyactionorproceedingwheneveritisinvoked,unlessbarred
[41]
bylaches. Consequently,thecompromiseagreementandtheOrderapprovingitmustbedeclarednull
andvoidandsetaside.

Wefindnomeritinpetitioners'claimthatrespondentsarebarredfromassailingthejudgmentafter
thelapseof24yearsfromitsfinalityongroundoflachesandestoppel.

Section3,Rule47oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatanactionforannulmentofjudgmentbased
onextrinsicfraudmustbefiledwithinfouryearsfromitsdiscoveryand,ifbasedonlackofjurisdiction,
beforeitisbarredbylachesorestoppel.

Theprincipleoflachesor"staledemands"ordainsthatthefailureorneglect,foranunreasonableand
unexplainedlengthoftime,todothatwhichbyexercisingduediligencecouldorshouldhavebeendone
earlier,orthenegligenceoromissiontoassertarightwithinareasonabletime,warrantsapresumptionthat
[42]
thepartyentitledtoassertiteitherhasabandoneditordeclinedtoassertit.

 Thereisnoabsoluteruleastowhatconstituteslachesorstalenessofdemandeachcaseistobe
[43]
determinedaccordingtoitsparticularcircumstances. Thequestionoflachesisaddressedtothesound
discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
considerations.Itcannotbeusedtodefeatjusticeorperpetratefraudandinjustice.Itisthebetterrulethat
courts,undertheprincipleofequity,willnotbeguidedorboundstrictlybythestatuteoflimitationsorthe
[44]
doctrineoflacheswhentobeso,amanifestwrongorinjusticewouldresult.

Inthiscase,respondentslearnedoftheassailedorderonlysometimeinFebruary1998andfiledthe
petitionforannulmentofjudgmentin2001.Moreover,wefindthatrespondents'righttodueprocessisthe
paramountconsiderationinannullingtheassailedorder.Itbearsstressingthatanactiontodeclarethenullity
[45]
ofavoidjudgmentdoesnotprescribe.

Finally,consideringthattheassailedCFIjudgmentisvoid,ithasnolegalandbindingeffect,force
orefficacyforanypurpose.Incontemplationoflaw,itisnonexistent.Hence,theexecutionoftheDeed
ofSalebyLopeinfavorofColumbapursuanttosaidvoidjudgment,theissuanceoftitlespursuanttosaid
DeedofSale,andthesubsequenttransfersarevoidabinitio.Noreversibleerrorwasthuscommittedby
theCAinannullingthejudgment.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDandtheDecisiondatedJuly18,2003andResolution
datedNovember13,2003oftheCourtofAppealsareAFFIRMED.TheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch
XI,CebuandtheHeirsofEvaristoCuyosareDIRECTEDtoproceedwithSPProceedingsCaseNo.24
BNforthesettlementoftheEstateofEvaristoCuyos.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.



MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice







ATTESTATION


IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision







CERTIFICATION


 PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,
itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.andconcurredinbyJusticesCancioC.Garcia(formermemberofthisCourt)andMarianoC.delCastillorollo,
pp.3239.
[2]
Id.at41.
[3]
Entitled,HeirsofEvaristoCuyosrepresentedbytheirAttorneyinfact,SaludCuyos,Petitioners,v.CourtofFirstInstanceofCebu,BranchXI,Sps.
GorgonioBenatiroandColumbaCuyosBenatiroandSps.RenatoC.BenatiroandRosieM.Benatiro,Respondents.

[4]
CArollo,p.32
[5]
Rollo,pp.8184.
[6]
Id.at84.
[7]
Id.at55.
[8]
Rollo,pp.5659.
[9]
Id.at57.
[10]
Rollo,pp.6063.
[11]
Id.at63.
[12]
Id.at78.
[13]
Rollo,pp.7980.
[14]
CArollo,p.62.
[15]
Id.at63.
[16]
CArollo,pp.2426SpecialPowerofAttorney.
[17]
RefusedtosigntheSpecialPowerofAttorney.
[18]
Rollo,p.39.
[19]
G.R.No.90974,August27,1990,189SCRA107.
[20]
Rollo,pp.1011.
[21]
Id.at124125
[22]
Id.at123.
[23]
Id.at85.
[24]
Id.at86.
[25]
Ramosv.Combong,Jr.,G.R.No.144273,October20,2005,473SCRA499,504.
[26]
Intestate Estate of the Late NimfaSian v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 168882, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 662, 668
citingMercadov.SecurityBankCorporation,G.R.No.160445,February16,2006,482SCRA501,514 Alabanv.Courtof
Appeals, G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 697, 707 HiTone Marketing Corporation v. Baikal Realty
 Corporation,G.R.No.149992,August20,2004,437SCRA121,131Salongav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.111478,March
13,1997,269SCRA534,542Pinlacv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.91486,January19,2001,349SCRA635,650Heirsof
Pael v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133547, February 10, 2000, 325 SCRA 341, 358 Lapulapu Development & Housing
Corporation v. Risos, G.R. No. 118633, September 6, 1996, 261 SCRA 517, 524 Regidor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
78115,March5,1993,219SCRA530,534.
[27]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule47,Section2.
[28]
Albav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.164041,July29,2005,465SCRA495,508.
[29]
Tolentinov.Leviste,G.R.No.156118,November19,2004,443SCRA274.
[30]
CArollo,p.64.
[31]
Id.at123.
[32]
CArollo,p.67.
[33]
Rollo,AnnexH,p.64.
[34]
Id.at7576.
[35]
G.R.No.156536,October31,2006,506SCRA374.
[36]
Id.at384385.
[37]
Rollo,AnnexH,p.64.
[38]
MetropolitanBank&TrustCompanyv.Alejo,417Phil.303,316,318(2001).
[39]
G.R.No.111610,February27,2002,378SCRA28.(2002).
[40]
Id.at3536.
[41]
IntestateEstateoftheLateNimfaSianv.PhilippineNationalBank,supranote26,at670.
[42]
Chuav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.125837,October6,2004,440SCRA121,135.
[43]
FarEastBankandTrustCompanyv.Querimit,424Phil.721,732(2002).
[44]
AngPingv.CourtofAppeals,369Phil.607,616(1999).
[45]
SeePaluwaganngBayanSavingsBankv.King,G.R.No.78252,April12,1989,172SCRA60,69citingAngLamv.Rosillosa
andSantiago,86Phil.447,45(1950)VdadeMacoyv.CourtofAppeals, G.R. No. 95871, February 13, 1992,206SCRA
244,252.