Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

(1) LOPEZ vs.


(2) NOEL RUBBER vs . ESQUIVEL et. al
1. Hermogenes Lopez applied with the Bureau of Lands for a homestead patent over a parcel of land,
with an area of 19.4888 ha. located in Barrio dela Paz, Antipolo, Rizal. – approved, OCT isued
2. Wa sya kabalo nga na award na ang homestead sa iyaha. Gi sell niya ang land to Aguilar (DOAS)
3. Years later, na discover nga an area og 2.6950 ha. (portion) was erroneously included sa survey plan.
Kang Hizon diay to nga part, kay tapad silag lote – so Hermogenes executed quitclaim over the portion.
4. Hizon allegedly sold portion (DOAS) to Esquivel and Talens.
5. Hermogenes died. Heirs filed action to annul DOAS kay entire prop ang gbaligya ni Hizon
6. RTC granted. CA affirmed in toto – so void daw and DOAS sa #4
7. Pero--- Esquivel and Talens filed an Application for Registration of the subject property with the RTC.
8. Heirs opposed – kay titled na lgi daw ang prop.
9. RTC granted application for registration – pero ingon RTC di nya ma order og amend ang existing TCT
nga buk-on ang property nya ibahin kay acting as land reg. court raman sya – dapat reconveyance I file
10. Esquivel and Talens filed an action for reconveyance (importante ni nga case) CASE 96-4193
a. Land that the heirs inherited included the property which was conveyed to Hizon in the
quitclaim. So erroneous ang TCT.
11. Heirs answer:
a. cause of action already prescribed - failed to assert their alleged rights for 25 years. 
b. Quitclaim was ineffective because when such was executed, entire land was already sold to
Aguilar which included the portion.
12. RTC ruled in favor of Esquivel and Talens
13. Heirs of Lopez appealed in CA:
14. CA affirmed RTC decision
15. Heirs elevated to SC – law of the case daw dapat kay naa nay previous cases where validity of
homestead patent was upheld, nya void lgi daw ang quitclaim.
ISSUE: (wa ni labot sa topic kay ang 2 nd case may naay discussion sa topic) WON law of the case applies, and
WON the quitclaim is valid.
1. No law of the case – kay sa previous case, lahi og parties.
2. Quitclaim was void- Although beyond the prohibition period sya kay 26 yrs after issuance of
homestead patent, VOID PA RIN - kay basta homestead, former public land na sya. So kung erroneous
ang pag grant kay naay naapil nga portion, it is a problem between grantee and the State, so di pwede
nga basta nalang I convey ni Hermogenes kay if erroneous to ang homestead, mubalik man sa State
ang portion. Di sya ka buot buot og hatag kang Hizon. And bisan pag valid ang homestead, prescribed
na ang action kay more than 28 yrs. So way basis silang Esquivel nga mu ask og reconveyance.
(2) 2nd case na ta mga kapatid. Naa na diri ang topic so read carefully. Sequel ni sa First case.
1. So while pending pa ang first case sa SC, naay nagbida bida ani nga time. Mao ni si Nordec.
2. Nordec Phil Corp filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA. I annul daw niya ang
judgment sa Civil Case 96-4193 which ordered the reconveyance of property to Esquivel and Talens.
a. The portion was allegedly bought by them form the Heirs
b. Extrinsic fraud! - Null and void kay wa daw sila gi implead sa case as indispensable parties. So
denied due process daw sila
3. CA:
a. PREMATURE! - Bogo man diay ka! Pending pa man gud ang case. Unsa may I annul nga
judgment nimo bogoa ka? Wa pa gani na final and executory ang decision sa Civil Case 964193
kay pending appeal pa sa SC. Bogoag mama nimo Nordec.
4. Nordec elevated sa SC. Ni insist jud ang animal nga ma annul niya ang judgment. Ingon sya:
a. Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar insist that since Rules 37, 38 and 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure on motion for new trial, petition for relief, and appeal, respectively, simply mention
"judgments or final orders", without making any distinction as to whether or not the same is
final and executory; it should follow that where only the words "judgments or final orders"
are similarly used in Rule 47 on annulment of judgments, then such words should be
understood to also refer to all judgments or final orders, regardless of whether they are final
and executory.
ISSUE: WON CA erred in dismissing their Petition for Annulment of Judgment for being premature since the
judgment sought to be annulled is still the subject of a Petition for Review before this Court, docketed as G.R.
No. 168734, and is not yet final and executory. (TOPIC MGA BABES. MAO NI TOPIC!)
1. The ordinary remedies of a motion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief from
judgment are remedies available only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed judgment is
2. n fact, it has been held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear
therein, cannot make use of a petition for relief from judgment. 
3.  Indubitably, Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar cannot avail themselves of the aforesaid ordinary remedies
of motion for new trial, petition for relief from judgment, or appeal, because they were not parties to
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 96-4193 in which the RTC Decision dated 11 January 2001 sought to
be annulled was rendered. Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar also cannot seek the annulment of the 11
January 2001 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-4193.
4. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment
sought to be annulled was rendered.
5. The purpose of such action is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there will
be a renewal of litigation.
6. 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. 
7. An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral
in character.
8. It is, thus, settled that the purpose of a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is to have the final and
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. If the judgment sought to
be annulled, as in this case, is still on appeal or under review by a higher court, it cannot be regarded
as final, and there can be no renewal of litigation because the litigation is actually still open and
ongoing. In this light, the arguments of Nordec Phil. and Dr. Malvar that the judgments or final
orders need not be final and executory for it to be annulled must fail.