Notes.—It is conduct unbecoming of an officer of a court

of justice to use the Supreme Court’s letterhead, to
improperly obtain any information about complainant that
could sullen her character and reputation. (Dagsa-an vs.
Conag, 290 SCRA 12 [1998])
Calling the complainant a “greedy and usurer Chinese
woman,” tagging her lawyer as “lazy and negligent” while
branding her own clerk of court as “equally lazy and
incompetent” is not language befitting the esteemed
position of a magistrate of the law. (Cua Shuk Yin vs.
Perello, 474 SCRA 472 [2005])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 139672. March 4, 2009.*

GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,

petitioner, vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
KALOOKAN CITY, BRANCH 120, REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF KALOOKAN CITY, NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY, HEIRS OF GREGORIO BAJAMONDE AND
SATURNINA MENDOZA, AND THE REMINGTON
REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., respondents.

Land Titles; Actions; Words and Phrases; “Direct Attack” and

“Collateral Attack,” Distinguished.—An action or proceeding is
deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action is to
nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to
which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object
of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement. On the other hand, it is indirect or collateral when,
in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief, an attack on
the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
 533

VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 533

Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial Court

of Kalookan City, Br. 120

Same; The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is
presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership does not
apply where the very certificate itself is faulty as to its purported
origin.—Here, while it may be true that Civil Case No. C-760 was
originally an action for specific performance and damages,
nonetheless the case cannot constitute a collateral attack on the
petitioner’s title which, to begin with, was irregularly and illegally
issued. It bears stressing that the source of GAUF’s title was the
Compromise Agreement purportedly executed by Gregorio
Bajamonde, et al. on November 28, 1961. This Compromise
Agreement was approved by the trial court in Civil Case No. C-
760 in its Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961. As
petitioner’s own evidence shows, the subject property was
conveyed to it in compliance with and in satisfaction of the said
Partial Decision in Civil Case No. C-760 and the writ of execution
issued in connection therewith. The same Compromise Agreement
and Partial Decision, however, were declared null and void in
Civil Cases Nos. 17347 and 17364 and likewise effectively
invalidated in CA-G.R. No. 45330-R. The rule that a title issued
under the Torrens System is presumed valid and, hence, is the
best proof of ownership does not apply where the very certificate
itself is faulty as to its purported origin, as in the present case.
Same; Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a title
does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation.—
With the reality that the presumption of authenticity and
regularity enjoyed by the petitioner’s title has been overcome and
overturned by the aforementioned decisions nullifying the
aforesaid Compromise Agreement from whence the petitioner’s
title sprung, that title can never be indefeasible as its issuance
was replete with badges of fraud and irregularities that rendered
the same nugatory. Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility
of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. In view of these circumstances, it was as if no
title at all was ever issued in this case to the petitioner and
therefore this is hardly the occasion to talk of collateral attack
against a title.
Same; Intervention; Jurisdiction; Where a party voluntarily
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court through the
process of intervention, it would be too late in the day for it to turn
its back and disclaim that jurisdiction, more so where an adverse
judgment has already been rendered against it.—Petitioner’s
challenge

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial Court

of Kalookan City, Br. 120

with respect to the jurisdictional competence of the trial court to

order the cancellation of its certificate of title in Civil Case No. C-
760 must simply collapse. Quite the contrary, the trial court
having acquired jurisdiction not only over the subject matter of
the case but also over the parties thereto, it was unnecessary to
institute a separate action to nullify petitioner’s title. Having
voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court
through the process of intervention, it is rather too late in the day
for the petitioner to now turn its back and disclaim that
jurisdiction, more so where, as here, an adverse judgment has
already been rendered against it. Case law teaches that if the
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of
the parties, its ruling upon all questions involved are mere errors
of judgment reviewable by appeal. Any error in the judgment of
the trial court should have been raised by petitioner through
appeal by way of a petition for review with the CA. Having failed
to file such an appeal, petitioner cannot anymore question the
final and executory order, in a petition for annulment with the
CA, as petitioner did in this case.
Appeals; It is elementary that in a petition for review under
Rule 45 only legal, not factual, issues may be raised before the
Supreme Court unless exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a
review of the facts.—In any event, the purported withdrawal of
Civil Case No. C-474 and the authenticity of the amicable
settlement attached to the present petition are factual issues
improperly and belatedly raised in this appeal. It is elementary
that in a petition for review under Rule 45 only legal, not factual,
issues may be raised before this Court unless exceptional
circumstances exist to warrant a review of the facts. A perusal of
the GAUF’s petition filed with the CA would also show that the
alleged valid amicable settlement of Civil Case No. C-474 was not
raised therein as a ground for the annulment of the Joint Order
dated August 29, 1986 and December 23, 1988 Order.
Petitioner is, therefore, precluded from raising this argument for
the first time on appeal.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Soo, Gutierrez, Leogardo and Lee for petitioner.
535

VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 535

Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

  Emilio C. Capulong, Jr. for respondent Heirs of

Gregorio Bajamonde and Saturnina Mendoza.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, herein petitioner Gregorio Araneta University
Foundation (GAUF) assails and seeks to set aside the
Decision1 dated March 31, 1999 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 23872 and its Resolution2 of
August 16, 1999, denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
The assailed decision upheld the Joint Order3 dated
August 29, 1986 and the Order4 dated December 23,
1988 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City,
Branch 120, in Civil Case No. C-760 which, among others,
directed the cancellation of GAUF’s Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. C-24153 and the issuance in lieu thereof of
new titles in the name of the respondent Heirs of Gregorio
Bajamonde over Lots 54 and 75 of the Gonzales Estate.
The factual antecedents as found by the CA are quoted
hereunder:

“By virtue of a decision rendered on March 29, 1950 by the

then Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 131 and
affirmed by the Supreme Court on May 14, 1954, in G.R. No. L-
4918, the Gonzales or Maysilo estate in Malabon, Rizal, with an
area of 871,982 square meters and covered by TCT No. 35487,
was expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines, with the
understanding that the Government would resell the property to
its occupants.

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis (now ret.), with Associate

Justice Jainal D. Rasul (now ret.), and then Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-
Morales, now a member of this Court, concurring; Rollo, pp. 42-57.
2 Id., at pp. 68-69.
 3 Id., at pp. 81-84.
4 Id., at p. 106.

536

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial Court
of Kalookan City, Br. 120

In view of the failure of the Government and its

instrumentality, then Rural Progress Administration and later
the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC), to
implement the decision in Civil Case No. 131, the occupants and
tenants of the estate filed on October 20, 1960, a complaint in
Civil Case No. 6376 (now Civil Case No. C-760) with the then
Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch) to compel PHHC to
sell to the tenants their respective occupied portions of the
Gonzales estate.
On April 29, 1961, the then Araneta Institute of Agriculture,
now Gregorio Araneta University Foundation (GAUF) sought to
intervene in Civil Case No. 6376 (Civil Case No. C-760) on the
ground that 52 tenants of the property and Araneta Institute of
Agriculture entered into an agreement or “Kasunduan” whereby
the former conveyed to the latter their priority rights to purchase
portion of the estate with an area of 507,376 square meters.
On the basis of this “Kasunduan,” a compromise agreement
dated November 28, 1961 was submitted in Civil Case No. 6376
(Civil Case No. C-760) which was duly approved by the court.
Included in this compromise agreement are Lots 75 and 54
awarded to Gregorio Bajamonde.
x x x x x x x x x
Incidentally, it appears that on the basis of the “Kasunduan”
and the forged compromise, Araneta University was able to
register in its name with the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City
Transfer Certificate of Title No. C-24153 for Lots 75 and 54 which
as adverted to above, had been awarded to Gregorio Bajamonde.
However, in Civil Cases Nos. 17347 and 17364, both of the then
Court of First Instance of Rizal, the compromise agreement
entered into by and between Araneta University and the tenants
on November 28, 1961 was declared null and void for being a
forgery, and the partial decision rendered in accordance therewith
was likewise declared null and void and of no force and effect.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 45330-R the
appellate court sustained the nullity of the “Kasunduan” and the
compromise agreement in accordance thereto. x x x.
Thus, on motion by the heirs of Gregorio Bajamonde, the lower
court in Civil Case No. C-760 issued the order dated August 29,
1986:

537

VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 537

Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial Court
of Kalookan City, Br. 120

(1) Declaring that any transfer or conveyance of Lots

75 and 54 or any purpose thereof from Gregorio Bajamonde
to Araneta Institute of Agriculture or Gregorio Araneta
University Foundation, or their assignee or successors-in-
interest as rescinded, and to restore said lots 75 and 54 to
the real owners, Gregorio Bajamonde and/or heirs;
(2) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City to
cancel TCT No. C-24153 issued in the name of Gregorio
Araneta University Foundation and to issue a new Transfer
Certificate of Title over lots 75 and 54 in the name of
Gregorio Bajamonde or heirs;
(3) Ordering the Clerk of Court to issue writ of
possession in favor of Gregorio Bajamonde or heirs.
And then on May 27, 1988 the lower court issued the order for
issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the joint
order dated August 29, 1986, with a restraining order against
Nonong Ridad, Graciano Napbua, Sergio Yeban, Gavino Miguel,
Angel Cabrera and nine other persons, and their agents or
representatives from squatting, occupying, staying and taking
possession of Lots 75 and 54, or any portions thereof, including all
the improvements and structures existing thereon.
GAUF Personnel Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. assailed
the said order via a petition for certiorari, injunction and
restraining order in this Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
14839, which was however dismissed for lack of merit in a
decision promulgated by this Court on June 29, 1989. A petition
for review filed with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No.
89969 was likewise denied with finality on February 19, 1990.
Meanwhile, on December 23, 1988, respondent Judge Arturo
Romero issued in Civil Case No. 6376 (now Civil Case No. C-760)
an order for the execution of the aforesaid joint order dated
August 29, 1986.
Eventually, (in compliance with the joint order dated December
23, 1988), TCT No. C-24153 for Lots 75 and 54 in the name of
Araneta University was cancelled and TCT No. 174672 for lot 75
and TCT No. 174671 for lot 54 were issued by the Register of
Deeds of Caloocan City on December 27, 1988 to the rightful
owner thereof, Gregorio Bajamonde.

538
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

On June 29, 1989, the heirs of Bajamonde sold a portion

of lot 54 consisting of 7,685 square meters to the herein
other respondent, Remington Realty Development, Inc.5
On January 14, 1991, GAUF filed with the CA a petition
for annulment6 of the aforementioned Joint Order dated
August 29, 1986 and the Order dated December 23, 1988.
In its petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 23872, GAUF
essentially alleged that the twin orders in question were
issued by the trial court without jurisdiction as the same
constituted a collateral attack on its certificate of title (TCT
No. C-24153) in violation of Section 48 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 (P.D. 1529),7 otherwise known as the
Property Registration Decree.
In the herein challenged decision dated March 31, 1999,
the appellate court denied the petition for annulment. In
explanation of the denial, the CA ruled as follows:

“It may not be remiss to state that by virtue of the

“Kasunduan” which was submitted in Civil Case No. 6376 (now
Civil Case No. C-760), GAUF was able to register in its name with
the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City TCT No. C-24153 for Lots
75 and 54 which had been awarded to Gregorio Bajamonde.
However, in Civil Cases Nos. 17347 and 17364, the said
“Kasunduan” or compromise agreement was declared null and
void for being a forgery. Such ruling was appealed to the Court of
Appeals, CA-G.R. No. 45330-R which affirmed the decision
rendered in Civil Cases Nos. 17347 and 17634. Correspondingly,
xxx, the finality of the orders impugned in the present petition
cannot be therefore disturbed without impugning likewise the
finality of the orders rendered in Civil Cases Nos. 17347 and
17364 rendered by the then Court of First Instance of Rizal and
affirmed likewise by this Court in CA-G.R. No. 45330-R in a
decision promulgated on February 7, 1973.

_______________

5 CA Rollo, p. 11.

6 Id., at pp. 2-18.
7  Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.—A certificate of title
shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

539
 VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 539
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial Court
of Kalookan City, Br. 120

It clearly appears that the basis of respondent judge in issuing

the questioned order is the declared nullity of the “Kasunduan.” It
was in Civil Case No. 6376 (now Civil Case No. C-760) where the
nullified “Kasunduan” was submitted by the petitioner and the
private respondents herein; it was in the same case where, by
virtue of the said “Kasunduan,” petitioner GAUF was able to
register in its name with the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City
TCT No. C-24153 for Lots 54 and 75 which had been awarded to
Gregorio Bajamonde. Accordingly, it is also in the same case and
court where the cancellation should be sought as a result of the
nullity of the “Kasunduan.”

With its motion for reconsideration having been denied

by the CA in its resolution of August 16, 1999, petitioner
GAUF is now before this Court via the instant recourse
submitting for our consideration the following arguments:

1. THE JOINT ORDER OF AUGUST 29, 1986 AND THE

DECEMBER 23, 1988 ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ARE NULL AND VOID AB INITIO
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT (SIC) AMENDED
THE ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY ORDER OF JULY
19, 1978 DISMISSING AND GRANTING THE WITHDRAWAL
OF THE COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. C-474 OF THE
THEN CFI OF RIZAL FILED BY THE DECEASED GREGORIO
BAJAMONDE;
2. THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO CANCEL PETITIONER GAUF’S TCT NO.
C-24153 IN THE HEARING OF THE OMNIBUS MOTION
DATED MAY 12, 1986 AND MANIFESTATION AND MOTION
DATED JULY 1, 1986 OF THE HEIRS OF GREGORIO
BAJAMONDE. THE SAID PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE A
COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PETITIONER’S TCT NO. C-24153
WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 48 OF P.D. NO. 1529,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION
DECREE;
3. “A VOID JUDGMENT MAY BE ASSAILED OR
IMPUGNED AT ANY TIME” [ZAIDE, JR. VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, 184 SCRA 531];
4. THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION TO ANNUL JUDGMENT
ARE ALLEGEDLY BARRED BY THE RULE OF RES
JUDICATA IS CONTRARY TO LAW. THE SUPPOSED
RULINGS IN CIVIL
 540

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial Court
of Kalookan City, Br. 120

CASE NOS. 17347 AND 17364, AS WELL AS THE RULING IN

CA-G.R. NO. 45330-R DO NOT BAR THE PETITION TO ANNUL
JUDGMENT.8

Fundamentally, petitioner’s arguments center on the

question of whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to
issue the Joint Order dated August 29, 1986 and
December 23, 1988 Order, which directed the
cancellation of the petitioner’s title over Lots 54 and 75 of
the former Gonzales/Maysilo Estate and ordered the
issuance of new titles over the same lots in the name of the
Heirs of Gregorio Bajamonde.
It is the petitioner’s thesis that the orders in question
directing the cancellation of its TCT No. 24153 constituted
a collateral attack on its title, a course of action prohibited
by Section 48 of P. D. No. 1529 because said orders were
issued in connection with Civil Case No. C-760, a suit for
specific performance and damages and not a direct
proceeding for the cancellation of its title. On this premise,
petitioner argues that the trial court is bereft of jurisdiction
to issue the disputed orders.
We find the present petition unmeritorious.
An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title
when the object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus
challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was
decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action
is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement. On the other hand, it is indirect or collateral
when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief,
an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an
incident thereof.9
Here, while it may be true that Civil Case No. C-760 was
originally an action for specific performance and damages,

_______________

8 Id., at p. 27.
9 Mallilin, Jr. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA
628, 640.

541
 VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 541
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

nonetheless the case cannot constitute a collateral attack

on the petitioner’s title which, to begin with, was
irregularly and illegally issued. It bears stressing that the
source of GAUF’s title was the Compromise Agreement
purportedly executed by Gregorio Bajamonde, et al. on
November 28, 1961. This Compromise Agreement was
approved by the trial court in Civil Case No. C-760 in its
Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961. As petitioner’s
own evidence shows, the subject property was conveyed to
it in compliance with and in satisfaction of the said Partial
Decision in Civil Case No. C-760 and the writ of execution
issued in connection therewith.10 The same Compromise
Agreement and Partial Decision, however, were declared
null and void in Civil Cases Nos. 17347 and 17364 and
likewise effectively invalidated in CA-G.R. No. 45330-R.11
The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is
presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership
does not apply where the very certificate itself is faulty as
to its purported origin,12 as in the present case.
With the reality that the presumption of authenticity
and regularity enjoyed by the petitioner’s title has been
overcome and overturned by the aforementioned decisions
nullifying the aforesaid Compromise Agreement from
whence the petitioner’s title sprung, that title can never be
indefeasible as its issuance was replete with badges of
fraud and irregularities that rendered the same nugatory.
Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a title
does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation.13 In view of these circumstances, it was
as if no title at all was ever issued in this case to the
petitioner and therefore this is hardly the occasion to talk
of collateral attack against a title.

_______________

10 Deed of Conveyance, Annex “G,” CA Petition, CA Rollo, p. 46.

11 Id., at pp. 331-344.
12 Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, G.R. No. 133465,
September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 58.
13 Baguio v. Republic, G.R. No. 119682, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA
450, 457.

542
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

We agree with the CA that the trial court in Civil Case

No. C-760 had jurisdiction to annul petitioner’s title. It
must be emphasized that, notwithstanding the original
denomination of the said action as one for specific
performance and damages, it was petitioner GAUF no less
which sought to intervene in Civil Case No. C-760 and
claimed that it has rights or interests in the subject matter
being litigated therein. GAUF voluntarily submitted in
Civil Case No. C-760 the purported “Kasunduan” which, in
turn, became the basis of the Compromise Agreement and
the Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961. It is
undeniable that petitioner’s TCT No. C-24153 was issued
in enforcement or execution of a partial decision in Civil
Case No. C-760. As it were, the validity of petitioner’s title
was an issue litigated in Civil Case No. C-760 on account of
the presentation therein of the Compromise Agreement
which, to stress, was the springboard of petitioner’s title.
Hence, when that same Compromise Agreement and the
Partial Decision in connection therewith were eventually
nullified, the trial court acted very much within its
jurisdiction in ordering the cancellation of petitioner’s title
in the same Civil Case No. C-760.
Lest it be forgotten, it was likewise petitioner itself
and/or its privies or assignees which instituted numerous
petitions relative to the validity/enforceability of the
Compromise Agreement and the Partial Decision and the
validity of petitioner’s certificate of title. In fact, in one of
those petitions, the appellate court ordered the trial court
to hear and pass upon all unresolved incidents in Civil
Case No. C-760, including motions assailing the
Compromise Agreement and the Partial Decision upon
which petitioner’s title was based.14 Clearly then, when the
trial court granted respondent heirs’ Omnibus Motion and
Motion to Vest Title in its assailed Joint Order of August
29, 1986 and Order dated December 23, 1988, respectively,
that court was unquestionably exercising

_______________

14 CA Rollo, pp. 378-384.

543
 VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 543
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

its jurisdiction to hear and resolve those incidents pursuant

to the appellate court’s directive.
With the above, petitioner’s challenge with respect to
the jurisdictional competence of the trial court to order the
cancellation of its certificate of title in Civil Case No. C-760
must simply collapse. Quite the contrary, the trial court
having acquired jurisdiction not only over the subject
matter of the case but also over the parties thereto, it was
unnecessary to institute a separate action to nullify
petitioner’s title. Having voluntarily submitted itself to the
jurisdiction of the trial court through the process of
intervention, it is rather too late in the day for the
petitioner to now turn its back and disclaim that
jurisdiction, more so where, as here, an adverse judgment
has already been rendered against it. Case law teaches
that if the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the person of the parties, its ruling upon all questions
involved are mere errors of judgment reviewable by
appeal.15 Any error in the judgment of the trial court
should have been raised by petitioner through appeal by
way of a petition for review with the CA. Having failed to
file such an appeal, petitioner cannot anymore question the
final and executory order, in a petition for annulment
with the CA, as petitioner did in this case.
Interestingly, in its present petition for review, GAUF
concede the various decisions which have declared the
Compromise Agreement and the Partial Decision void but
argues that the annulment of the Compromise Agreement
will not affect the validity of petitioner’s TCT No. C-24153
on the ground that GAUF’s title was allegedly not issued
by virtue of the Compromise Agreement but rather the
purported withdrawal by Gregorio Bajamonde of his
complaint in Civil Case No. C-474 which was an action for
annulment of the Compromise Agreement dated November
28, 1961. We cannot agree with

_______________

15 Lapulapu Development & Housing Corp. v. Risos, G.R. No. 118633,

September 6, 1996, 261 SCRA 517, 525.

544
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

petitioner’s opinion on this point. The fact still remains

that the ultimate source of petitioner’s right to Lots 54 and
75 is the voided Compromise Agreement.
In any event, the purported withdrawal of Civil Case
No. C-474 and the authenticity of the amicable settlement
attached to the present petition are factual issues
improperly and belatedly raised in this appeal. It is
elementary that in a petition for review under Rule 45 only
legal, not factual, issues may be raised before this Court
unless exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a review
of the facts.16 A perusal of the GAUF’s petition filed with
the CA would also show that the alleged valid amicable
settlement of Civil Case No. C-474 was not raised therein
as a ground for the annulment of the Joint Order dated
August 29, 1986 and December 23, 1988 Order.
Petitioner is, therefore, precluded from raising this
argument for the first time on appeal. All in all, we find no
reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that:

“Even on the assumptions that the void “Compromise

Agreement” dated November 28, 1961 and the subsequent
Amicable Settlement dated July 13, 1978 between the intervenor
and Gregorio Bajamonde or heirs were both valid, the tenants,
particularly Gregorio Bajamonde or heirs, have all the rights (sic)
to regard as rescinded the said two (2) agreements by reason of
the consistent refusals or failures of the intervenor to fully comply
with or to abide with its obligations or commitments to the
affected tenants.
x x x x x x x x x
On the part of the Intervenor, it cannot insist on the
enforcement of the terms and conditions of the Amicable
Settlement dated July 13, 1978 against the tenant Gregorio
Bajamonde or heir over Lots 75 and 54 of the Gonzales Estate
because it was not judicially approved by this Court nor by other
competent courts and that it was also regarded as rescinded by
the heirs of Gregorio Bajamonde.”17

_______________

16 Professional Academic Plans, Inc. v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 148599,

March 14, 2005, 453 SCRA 342, 353.
17 Order dated August 29, 1986 at p. 2, CA Rollo, p. 82.

545
 VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 545
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation vs. Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City, Br. 120

In light of the foregoing, this Court is inclined to believe

that the instant petition was a last-ditch effort on the part
of petitioner GAUF to secure a reversal of the final and
executory orders of the trial court in Civil Case No. C-760.
However, and as correctly pointed out by the CA in the
decision under review, Rule 47 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure18 permits annulment of judgment only on two (2)
grounds, to wit: (a) that the judgment sought to be
annulled is void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due
process of law; or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud,
neither of which obtain herein.
In closing, let it be mentioned that a writ of execution
for the enforcement of the assailed August 29, 1986 Joint
Order had already been issued by the trial court in its
Order of May 27, 1988, which Order was upheld by the CA
in CA-G.R. SP No. 1483919 and ultimately by this Court no
less in G.R. No. 89969.20 Petitioner, its privies, assignees
and/or successors in interest are bound by these final and
executory decisions and orders. For this Court now to
annul the Joint Order is for it to vacate its Resolution in
G.R. No. 89969. The policy of judicial stability, not to
mention the confusion such course of action would entail in
the speedy administration of justice simply dictates the
rejection of petitioner’s legal maneuverings to avoid the
consequences of adverse decisions and orders that have
long become final and executory.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED
and the assailed decision dated March 31, 1999 of the
Court of Appeals and its resolution dated August 16, 1999
in CA-G.R. SP No. 23872 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.

_______________

18 Section 2. Grounds for Annulment.—The annulment may be based

only on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
19 CA Rollo, pp. 385-391.
20  GAUF Personnel Homeowners Association, et al. v. The Honorable
Court of Appeals, January 15, 1990.

 
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.