G.R. No.

161220 July 30, 2008

SPOUSES GORGONIO BENATIRO and COLUMBA CUYOS-BENATIRO In the hearing held on January 30, 1973, both parties together with their respective
substituted by their heirs, namely: Isabelita, Renato, Rosadelia and
Gorgonio, Jr., surnamed Benatiro, and SPOUSES RENATO C. BENATIRO and counsels appeared. Both counsels manifested that the parties had come to an agreement to
ROSIE M. BENATIRO, Respondents,
vs. settle their case. The trial court on even date issued an Order[5] appointing Gloria
HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS, namely: Gloria Cuyos-Talian, Patrocenia
Cuyos-Mijares, Numeriano Cuyos, and Enrique Cuyos, represented by their as administratrix of the estate. The dispositive portion reads:
attorney-in-fact, Salud Cuyos, Respondents.
WHEREFORE, letters of administration of the estate of the
late Evaristo Cuyos and including the undivided half accruing to his
ISSUE: WON the heirs were indeed notified before the com promise spouse Agatona Arrogante who recently died is hereby issued in favor of
agreement was arrived at . Mrs. Gloria Cuyos Talian who may qualify as such administratrix after
posting a nominal bond of P1,000.00.[6]
HELD: Negative.

HOLDING DECISION: July 18, 2003 and Resolution dated November 13, Subsequently, in the Order[7] dated December 12, 1975, the CFI stated that when the
2003 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Intestate Estate hearing was called on that date, respondent Gloria and her

brother, oppositorFrancisco, together with their respective counsels, appeared; that Atty. Yray,
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Franciscos counsel, manifested that the parties had come to an agreement to settle the case
filed by petitioners seeking to annul the Decision[1] dated July 18, 2003 of the Court of Appeals
amicably; that both counsels suggested that the Clerk of Court, Atty. Andres
(CA) and its Resolution[2] dated November 13, 2003 denying petitioners motion for
C. Taneo (Atty. Taneo), be appointed to act as Commissioner to effect the agreement of the
reconsideration issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 65630. [3]
parties and to prepare the project of partition for the approval of the court. In the same Order,

the Court of First Instance (CFI) appointed Atty. Taneo and ordered him to make a project of
Spouses Evaristo Cuyos and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos were blessed with nine children, partition within 30 days from December 12, 1975 for submission and approval of the court.
namely: Francisco, Victoria, Columba, Lope, Salud, Gloria, Patrocenia, Numeriano, and In his Commissioner's Report[8] dated July 29, 1976, Atty. Taneo stated that he
Enrique. On August 28, 1966, Evaristo died leaving six parcels of land located issued subpoenae supplemented by telegrams to all the heirs to cause their appearance on
in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu covered by Tax Declaration (TD) Nos. 000725, 000728, 000729, February 28 and 29, 1976 in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu, where the properties are
000730, 000731, 000732, all under the name of Agatona Arrogante. 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,
On July 13, 1971, one of the heirs, Gloria Cuyos-Talian (respondent Gloria) these three heirs could not be located in their respective given addresses; that since some of
represented by Atty. Victor Elliot Lepiten (Atty. Lepiten), filed before the Court of First Instance the heirs present resided outside the province of Cebu, they decided to go ahead with the
(CFI) now Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, a petition for Letters of Administration,
[4]
scheduled meeting.
docketed as Special Proceeding (SP) No. 24-BN entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate

of EvaristoCuyos, Gloria Cuyos-Talian, petitioner. The petition was opposed by Glorias brother, Atty. Taneo declared in his Report that the heirs who were present:
Francisco, who was represented by Atty. Jesus Yray (Atty. Yray). 1. Agreed to consider all income of the properties of the estate
during the time that Francisco Cuyos, one of the heirs, was
 administering the properties of the estate (without appointment from have been paid for, the remainder shall, upon order of the Court, be divided
the Court) as having been properly and duly accounted for. equally among the heirs. [11]

2. Agreed to consider all income of the properties of the estate

during the administration of Gloria Cuyos Talian, (duly appointed by
the Court) also one of the heirs as having been properly and duly The CFI disapproved the claim of respondent Gloria for the sum of P5,570.00, as the
accounted for.
same had been allegedly disregarded by the heirs present during the conference.
3. Agreed to consider all motions filed in this
proceedings demanding an accounting from Francisco Cuyos and
Gloria Cuyos Talian, as having been withdrawn. In an Order[12] dated January 11, 1978, the CFI appointed Lope Cuyos (Cuyos) as the

4. Agreed not to partition the properties of the estate but instead new administrator of the estate, purportedly on the basis of the motion to relieve respondent
agreed to first sell it for the sum of P40,000.00 subject to the condition
that should any of the heirs would be in a position to buy the Gloria,as it appeared that she was already residing in Central Luzon and her absence was
properties of the estate, the rest of the eight (8) heirs will just receive
only Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) each. detrimental to the early termination of the proceedings.

5. Agreed to equally divide the administration expenses to be

deducted from their respective share of P4,000.00.[9]
On May 25, 1979, administrator Cuyos executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[13] over the

six parcels of land constituting the intestate estate of the late Evaristo Cuyos in favor
The Report further stated that Columba Cuyos-Benatiro (Columba), one of the heirs, of Columba for a consideration of the sum of P36,000.00.
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. Atty. Taneo explained that the Sometime in February 1998, the heirs of Evaristo Cuyos, namely: Gloria Cuyos-
delay in the submission of the Report was due to the request of respondent Gloria that she be Talian, Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares, Numeriano Cuyos and Enrique Cuyos, represented by their
given enough time to make some consultations on what was already agreed upon attorney-in-fact, Salud Cuyos (respondents), allegedly learned that Tax Declaration Nos.
by the majority of the heirs; that it was only on July 11, 1976 that the letter of respondent 000725, 000728, 000729, 000730, 000731 and 000732, which were all in the name of their
Gloria was handed to Atty. Taneo,with the information that respondent Gloria was amenable to late mother AgatonaArrogante, were canceled and new Tax Declaration Nos., namely, 20-
what had been agreed upon, provided she be given the sum of P5,570.00 as her share of the 14129, 20-14130, 20-141131, 20-14132, 2014133 and 20-14134, were issued
estate, since one of properties of the estate was mortgaged to her in order to defray their in Columbas name; and that later on, Original Certificates of Titles covering the estate
father's hospitalization. of Evaristo Cuyos were issued in favor of Columba; that some of these parcels of land were

subsequently transferred to the names of spouses Renato C. Benatiro and Rosie M. Benatiro,
Quoting the Commissioners Report, the CFI issued the assailed son and daughter-in-law, respectively, of petitioners Gorgonio and Columba, for which transfer
Order [10]
dated December 16, 1976, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: certificates of title were subsequently issued; that they subsequently discovered the existence of
WHEREFORE, finding the terms and conditions agreed upon by the heirs to the assailed CFI Order dated December 16, 1976 and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 25,
be in order, the same being not contrary to law, said compromise
agreement as embodied in the report of the commissioner is hereby 1979.
approved. The Court hereby orders the Administratrix to execute the deed
of sale covering all the properties of the estate in favor
of Columba Cuyos Benatiro after the payment to her of the sum
of P36,000.00. The said sum of money shall remain in custodia legis, but
after all the claims and administration expenses and the estate taxes shall
 Respondents filed a complaint against petitioner Gorgonio Benatiro before the

Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) of the Department of Justice, which Herein petitioners contend that respondents' allegation that they discovered the assailed

on June 13, 2000 dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.[14] order dated December 16, 1976 only in February 1998 was preposterous, as respondents were

represented by counsel in the intestate proceedings; thus, notice of Order to counsel was notice

Salud Cuyos brought the matter for conciliation and mediation at to client; that this was only a ploy so that they could claim that they filed the petition for

the barangay level, but was unsuccessful. [15]

annulment within the statutory period of four (4) years; that they have been in possession of

the six parcels of land since May 25, 1979 when the same was sold to them pursuant to the

On July 16, 2001, Salud Cuyos, for herself and in representation [16]
of the other heirs assailed Order in the intestate proceedings; that no extrinsic fraud attended the issuance of the

of Evaristo Cuyos, namely: Gloria, Patrocenia, Numeriano,[17] and Enrique, filed with the CA a assailed order; that Numeriano executed an affidavit in which he attested to having received his

petition for annulment of the Order dated December 16, 1976 of the CFI of Cebu, Branch XI, in SP share of the sale proceeds on May 18, 1988; that respondents were estopped from assailing the

No. 24-BN under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. They alleged that the CFI Order dated December Order dated December 16, 1976, as it had already attained the status of finality.

16, 1976 was null and void and of no effect, the same being based on a Commissioner's

Report, which was patently false and irregular; that such report practically deprived them of due On July 18, 2003, the CA granted the petition and annulled the CFI order,

process in claiming their share of their father's estate; that Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares executed the dispositive portion of which reads:

an affidavit, as well as the unnotarized statement of Gloria stating that no meeting ever took FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, the instant petition is
hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order issued by the Court of First
place for the purpose of discussing how to dispose of the estate of their parents and that they Instance of Cebu Branch XI dated December 16, 1976 as well as the
Certificates of Title issued in the name of Columba Cuyos-Benatiro and the
never received any payment from the supposed sale of their share in the inheritance; that the
subsequent transfer of these Titles in the name of spouses Renato and
report was done in close confederacy with their co-heir Columba, who stood to be Rosie Benatiro are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Further, SP Proc.
Case No. 24-BN is hereby ordered reopened and proceedings thereon be
benefited by the Commissioner's recommendation, should the same be approved by the continued.[18]

probate court; that since the report was a falsity, any order proceeding therefrom was invalid;

that the issuance of the certificates of titles in favor of respondents were tainted with fraud and The CA declared that the ultimate fact that was needed to be established was the

irregularity, since the CFI which issued the assailed order did not appear to have been furnished veracity and truthfulness of the Commissioners Report, which was used by the trial court as its

a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale; that the CFI was not in custodia legis of the consideration basis for issuing the assailed Order. The CA held that to arrive at an agreement, there was a

of the sale, as directed in its Order so that it could divide the remainder of the consideration need for all the concerned parties to be present in the conference; however, such was not the

equally among the heirs after paying all the administration expenses and estate taxes; that the scenario since in their separate sworn statements, the compulsory heirs of the decedent attested

intestate case had not yet been terminated as the last order found relative to the case was the to the fact that no meeting or conference ever happened among them; that although under

appointment of Lope as administrator vice Gloria; that they never received their corresponding Section 3(m), Rule 133 on the Rules of Evidence, there is a presumption of regularity in the

share in the inheritance; and that the act of petitioners in manifest connivance with performance of an official duty, the same may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence to

administrator Lope amounted to a denial of their right to the property without due process of prove the contrary.

law, thus, clearly showing that extrinsic fraud caused them to be deprived of their property.
 The CA noted some particulars that led it to conclude that the conference was not held to the administratrix of the sum ofP36,000.00; that said sum of money shall remain
accordingly, to wit: (1) the Commissioners Report never mentioned the names of the heirs who
in custodia legis, but after all the claims and administration expenses and the estate taxes shall
were present in the alleged conference but only the names of those who were absent, when the
have been paid for, the remainder shall, upon order of the Court, be divided equally among the
names of those who were present were equally essential, if not even more important, than the
heirs.
names of those who were absent; (2) the Report also failed to include any proof of conformity to
the agreement from the attendees, such as letting them sign the report to signify their consent as
regards the agreed mechanisms for the estates settlement; (3) there was lack or absence of Moreover, the CA found that the copy of the Deed of Sale was not even furnished the

physical evidence attached to the report indicating that the respondents were indeed properly trial court nor was said money placed under custodia legis as agreed upon; that the Certification
notified about the scheduled conference. The CA then concluded that due to the absence of the dated December 9, 1998 issued by the Clerk of Court of Cebu indicated that the case had not
respondents' consent, the legal existence of the compromise agreement did not stand on a firm
yet been terminated and that the last Order in the special proceeding was the appointment of
ground.
Lope Cuyos as the new administrator of the estate; thus, the transfer of the parcels of
The CA further observed that although it appeared that notice of the report was given to
land, which included the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, cancellation of Tax
Atty. Lepiten and Atty. Yray, lawyers of Gloria and Francisco Cuyos, respectively, the same cannot
Declarations and the issuance of new Tax Declarations and Transfer Certificates of Title, all in
be taken as notice to the other heirs of Evaristo Cuyos; that a lawyers authority to compromise
favor of petitioners, were tainted with fraud. Consequently, the CA concluded that the
cannot be simply presumed, since what was required was the special authority to compromise on
compromise agreement, the certificates of title and the transfers made by petitioners through
behalf of his client; that a compromise agreement entered into by a person not duly authorized to
fraud cannot be made a legal basis of their ownership over the properties, since to do so would
do so by the principal is void and has no legal effect, citing Quiban v. Butalid;[19] that being a void
result in enriching them at the expense of the respondents; and that it was also evident that the
compromise agreement, the assailed Order had no legal effect.
fraud attendant in this case was one of extrinsic fraud, since respondents were denied the

opportunity to fully litigate their case because of the scheme utilized by petitioners to assert
Thus, the CA ruled that the Certificates of Titles obtained by herein petitioners were
their claim.
procured fraudulently; that the initial transfer of the properties to Columba Cuyos-Benatiro by

virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Lope Cuyos was clearly defective, since the
Hence, herein petition raising the following issues:
compromise agreement which served as the basis of the Deed of Absolute Sale was void and had
Whether or not annulment of order under Rule 47 of the Rules of
no legal effect. Court was a proper remedy where the aggrieved party had other
appropriate remedies, such as new trial, appeal, or petition for relief, which
they failed to take through their own fault.

The CA elaborated that there was no showing that Columba paid the sum Whether or not the Court of Appeals misapprehended the facts
when it annulled the 24 year old Commissioner's Report of the Clerk of
of P36,000.00 to the administrator as consideration for the sale, except for the testimony
Court - an official act which enjoys a strong presumption of regularity -
based merely on belated allegations of irregularities in the performance of
of Numeriano Cuyosadmitting that he received his share of the proceeds but without indicating
said official act.
the exact amount that he received; that even so, such alleged payment was incomplete and Whether or not upon the facts as found by the Court of Appeals
in this case, extrinsic fraud existed which is a sufficient ground to annul the
was not in compliance with the trial courts order for the administratix to execute the deed of lower court's order under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. [20]

sale covering all properties of the estate in favor of Columba Cuyos-Benatiro after the payment
 Subsequent to the filing of their petition, petitioners filed a Manifestation that they Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or
could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
were in possession of affidavits of waiver and desistance executed by the heirs of

Lope Cuyos[21] and respondent Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares[22] on February 17,

Although Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that annulment of a final
2004 and December 17, 2004, respectively. In both affidavits, the affiants stated that they
judgment or order of an RTC may be based "only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
had no more interest in prosecuting/defending the case involving the settlement of the
jurisdiction," jurisprudence recognizes denial of due process as additional .ground therefor.[26]
estate, since the subject estate properties had been bought by their late sister Columba, and

they had already received their share of the purchase price.Another heir,
An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is
respondent Numeriano Cuyos, had also earlier executed an Affidavit [23]
dated December 13,
extrinsic or collateral in character.[27] Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act
2001, stating that the subject estate was sold to Columba and that she had already received
committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was
her share of the purchase price on May 18, 1988. In addition, Numeriano had issued a
prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the
certification[24] dated May 18, 1988, which was not refuted by any of the parties, that he had
prevailing party.[28] Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or
already received P4,000.00 in payment of his share, which could be the reason why he refused
from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to
to sign the Special Power of Attorney supposedly in favor of Salud Cuyos for the filing of the
the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when
petition with the CA.
extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party

from having his day in court. [29]

The issue for resolution is whether the CA committed a reversible error in annulling
While we find that the CA correctly annulled the CFI Order dated December 16, 1976,
the CFI Order dated December 16, 1976, which approved the Commissioners Report
we find that it should be annulled not on the ground of extrinsic fraud, as there is no sufficient
embodying the alleged compromise agreement entered into by the heirs
evidence to hold Atty. Taneo or any of the heirs guilty of fraud, but on the ground that the assailed
of Evaristo and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos.
order is void for lack of due process.

We rule in the negative.

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
The remedy of annulment of judgment is extraordinary in character[25] and will not so
was incumbent upon Atty. Taneo to set a time and place for the first meeting of the heirs. In his
easily and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved by final judgments. Sections 1 and 2 of
Commissioners Report, Atty. Taneo stated that he caused the appearance of all the heirs
Rule 47 impose strict conditions for recourse to it, viz.:
of Evaristo Cuyosand Agatona Arrogante Cuyos in the place, where the subject properties were
Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern the annulment by the
Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions located for settlement, by sending them subpoenae supplemented by telegrams for them to
of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer attend the conference scheduled on February 28 to 29, 1976. It was also alleged that out of the
available through no fault of the petitioner.
nine heirs, only six attended the conference; however, as the CA aptly found, the Commissioner
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based
did not state the names of those present, but only those heirs who failed to attend the
only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
conference, namely: respondents Gloria, Salud and Enrique who, as stated in the Report, based Petitioners point out that the Commissioner was an officer of the court and a

on the return of service, could not be located in their respective given addresses. disinterested party and that, under Rule 133, Section 3(m) of the Rules on Evidence, there is a

presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

However, there is nothing in the records that would establish that the

alleged subpoenae, supplemented by telegrams, for the heirs to appear in the scheduled While, under the general rule, it is to be presumed that everything done by an officer in

conference were indeed sent to the heirs. In fact, respondent Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares, one of the connection with the performance of an official act in the line of his duty was legally done, such

heirs, who was presumably present in the conference, as she was not mentioned as among those presumption may be overcome by evidence to the contrary. We find the instances mentioned by

absent, had executed an affidavit dated December 8, 1998 attesting, to the fact that she was
[30]
the CA, such as absence of the names of the persons present in the conference, absence of the

not called to a meeting nor was there any telegram or notice of any meeting received by signatures of the heirs in the Commissioner's Report, as well as absence of evidence showing that

her. While Patrocenia had executed on December 17, 2004 an Affidavit of Waiver and respondents were notified of the conference, to be competent proofs of irregularity that rebut the

Desistance[31] regarding this case, it was only for the reason that the subject estate properties had presumption.

been bought by their late sister Columba, and that she had already received her corresponding

share of the purchase price, but there was nothing in the affidavit that retracted her previous Thus, we find no reversible error committed by the CA in ruling that the conference was

statement that she was not called to a meeting. Respondent Gloria also made not held accordingly and in annulling the assailed order of the CFI.

an unnotarized statement[32] that there was no meeting held. Thus, the veracity

of Atty. Taneos holding of a conference with the heirs was doubtful. Petitioners attached a Certification[33] dated August 7, 2003 issued by the Officer In

Moreover, there was no evidence showing that the heirs indeed convened for the Charge (OIC), Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 11, to show that copies of the

purpose of arriving at an agreement regarding the estate properties, since they were not even Commissioners Report were sent to all the heirs, except Salud and Enrique, as well

required to sign anything to show their attendance of the alleged meeting. In fact, the as to Attys. Lepiten and Yray as enumerated in the Notice found at the lower portion of the Report

Commissioner's Report, which embodied the alleged agreement of the heirs, did not bear the with the accompanying registry receipts.[34]

signatures of the alleged attendees to show their consent and conformity thereto.

In Cua v. Vargas,[35] in which the issue was whether heirs were deemed constructively

It bears stressing that the purpose of the conference was for the heirs to arrive at a notified of and bound by an extra-judicial settlement and partition of the estate, regardless of their

compromise agreement over the estate of Evaristo Cuyos. Thus, it was imperative that all the failure to participate therein, when the extra-judicial settlement and partition has been duly

heirs must be present in the conference and be heard to afford them the opportunity to protect published, we held:

their interests. Considering that no separate instrument of conveyance was executed among the The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an
ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states, however, that persons
heirs embodying their alleged agreement, it was necessary that the Report be signed by the heirs who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial
settlement will not be bound thereby. It contemplates a notice that
to prove that a conference among the heirs was indeed held, and that they conformed to the
has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or
agreement stated in the Report. partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all interested parties
to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial settlement and
partition), and not after such an agreement has already been
 executed as what happened in the instant case with the
publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among administrator is the legal representative not only of the estate but also of the heirs,
heirs.
legatees, and creditors whose interest he represents; that when the trial court issued the
The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive
assailed Order dated December 16, 1976 approving the Commissioner's Report, the parties
notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because
the same was notice after the fact of execution. The requirement of lawyers were duly served said copies of the Order on December 21, 1976 as shown by the
publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended
to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate. In this Certification[37] dated August 7, 2003 of the RTC OIC, Clerk of Court; that notices to lawyers
connection, the records of the present case confirm that respondents never
signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their should be considered notices to the clients, since, if a party is represented by counsel, service of
existence only shortly before the filing of the present complaint. Following
Rule 74, these extrajudicial settlements do not bind respondents, and the notices of orders and pleadings shall be made upon the lawyer; that upon receipt of such order
partition made without their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as
they are concerned[36] (Emphasis supplied) by counsels, any one of the respondents could have taken the appropriate remedy such

Applying the above-mentioned case by analogy, what matters is whether the heirs as amotion for reconsideration, a motion for new trial or a petition for relief under Rule 38 at the

were indeed notified before the compromise agreement was arrived at, which was not proper time, but they failed to do so without giving any cogent reason for such failure.

established, and not whether they were notified of the Commissioner's Report embodying the

alleged agreement afterwards. While the trial court's order approving the Commissioners Report was received by

Attys. Yray and Lepiten, they were the lawyers of Gloria and Francisco, respectively, but not the

We also find nothing in the records that would show that the heirs were called to a lawyers of the other heirs. As can be seen from the pleadings filed before the probate court,

hearing to validate the Report. The CFI adopted and approved the Report despite the absence Atty. Lepiten was Glorias counsel when she filed her Petition for letters of administration, while

of the signatures of all the heirs showing conformity thereto. The CFI adopted the Report Atty. Yray was Franciscos lawyer when he filed his opposition to the petition for letters of

despite the statement therein that only six out of the nine heirs attended the conference, administration and his Motion to Order administrarix Gloria to render an accounting and for the

thus, effectively depriving the other heirs of their chance to be heard. The CFI's action was partition of the estate.Thus, the other heirs who were not represented by counsel were not

tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of given any notice of the judgment approving the compromise. It was only sometime in February

property without due process of law. We find that the assailed Order dated December 16, 1998 that respondents learned that the tax declarations covering the parcels of land, which

1976, which approved a void Commissioner's Report, is a void judgment for lack of due process. were all in the name of their late mother Agatona Arrogante, were canceled; and new Tax

Declarations were issued in Columbas name,and Original Certificates of Titles were

We are not persuaded by petitioners contentions that all the parties in the intestate subsequently issued in favor of Columba. Thus, they could not have taken an appeal or other

estate proceedings in the trial court were duly represented by respective counsels, remedies.

namely, Atty. Lepitenfor petitioners-heirs and Atty. Yray for the oppositors-heirs; that when the

heirs agreed to settle the case amicably, they manifested such intention through their Considering that the assailed Order is a void judgment for lack of due process of law,

lawyers, as stated in the Order dated January 30, 1973; that an heir in the settlement of the it is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right or of any obligation.[38]

estate of a deceased person need not hire his own lawyer, because his interest in the estate is

represented by the judicial administrator who retains the services of a counsel; that a judicial In Nazareno v. Court of Appeals,[39] we stated the consequences of a void judgment,

thus:
 A void judgment never acquires finality. Hence, while The principle of laches or "stale demands" ordains that the failure or neglect, for an
admittedly, the petitioner in the case at bar failed to appeal timely the
aforementioned decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, it unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or
cannot be deemed to have become final and executory. In contemplation
should have been done earlier, or the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
of law, that void decision is deemed non-existent. Thus, there was no
effective or operative judgment to appeal from. In Metropolitan Waterworks time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
& Sewerage System vs. Sison, this Court held that:
declined to assert it.[42]
x x x [A] void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to
a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative
by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by
none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each
effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or
create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[43] The question of laches is
protection to those who seek to enforce. All proceedings founded on the
void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. In other words, a void addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would
controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and
be if there were no judgment. It, accordingly, leaves the parties litigants in
the same position they were in before the trial. injustice. It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound
Thus, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to be so, a manifest wrong or
source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it
and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never injustice would result.[44]
become final and any writ of execution based on it is void: "x x x it may be
said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at
sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.[40] (Emphasis
supplied) In this case, respondents learned of the assailed order only sometime in February 1998

and filed the petition for annulment of judgment in 2001. Moreover, we find that respondents'

The CFI's order being null and void, it may be assailed anytime, collaterally or in a right to due process is the paramount consideration in annulling the assailed order. It bears

direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it stressing that an action to declare the nullity of a void judgment does not prescribe.[45]

is invoked, unless barred by laches.[41] Consequently, the compromise agreement and the Order

approving it must be declared null and void and set aside. 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

We find no merit in petitioners' claim that respondents are barred from assailing the execution of the Deed of Sale by Lope in favor of Columba pursuant to said void judgment, the

judgment after the lapse of 24 years from its finality on ground of laches and estoppel. 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.

Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that an action for annulment of

judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery and, if WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision dated July 18, 2003 and

based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. Resolution dated November 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The Regional

Trial Court, Branch XI, Cebu and the Heirs of Evaristo Cuyos are DIRECTED to proceed with SP

Proceedings Case No. 24-BN for the settlement of the Estate of Evaristo Cuyos.

No costs. SO ORDERED.