G.R. No.

150159 July 25, 2003

TERESITA VILLAREAL MANIPOR, LAILANIE VILLAREAL MACANDOG, RODELO VILLAREAL,

ELY VILLAREAL, NOELITO VILLAREAL and LUISITO VILLAREAL, as represented by his attorney-in-
fact, TERESITA VILLAREAL MANIPOR, petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES PABLO & ANTONIA RICAFORT, respondents.

FACTS:

The herein respondents are co-owners of Abelardo Villareal, the predecessor in interest of Renato and
Teresita Villareal. However, Abelardo, during his lifetime acquired an OCT in violation of his agreement with
respondents. When Abelardo died, Renato and Teresita Villareal as heirs acquired a TCT.

Respondents filed an action for annulment of the said TCT. During the course of the proceedings, the
parties entered into an agreement whereby Renato and Teresita shall grant one-half of the land and the cost of the
suit to respondents after the formers admission of the agreement made by their predecessor.

Not long after the approval of the compromise agreement, the respondent filed for contempt against the two
due to failure to comply with the agreement. Before the proceedings upon the motion, herein petitioners filed for
intervention and substitution of the defendant as the latter waived their interest on the land. Upon realizing that the
compromise was really final, petitioners sought for relief of judgment by their co-heir Luisito, who according to
them learned of the judgment much later that them and is yet time barred.

The motion for intervention and substitution was denied and no M.R. was filed. The said petition for relief
was then filed by Luisito but was denied for lack of affidavit of merit and filing beyond 6 mos. after judgment.

Petitioners filed a petition for annulment before the C.A but was denied for not stating the reason for
mailing and so is their M.R. for not stating the material dates. No appeal was filed.

Another petition for annulment was filed before the CA but was denied against because they were unable to
move for a new trial or a petition for relief from judgment through no fault attributable to them. Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S:

WON the CA erred in attributing fault to petitioners simply because of the RTCs denial of the latters petition for
relief.

WON the CA erred in considering their original petition as not having been filed under Rule 13 Section 11.

WON the CA erred in denying their M.R. for failure to state the material dates.

HELD:

1. NO. Petitioners herein do not have legal interest over the said land as they have donated it already to
Renato and his wife at the death of their father. Petitioners are deemed estopped for claiming interest
therein and as not being indispensable parties cannot file for relief of judgment.
2. NO. Rule 13 Section 11. States,

Priorities in modes of service and filing. Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and
other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to
other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done
personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (n)

Petitioners failed to state their reason for usage of the said service of filing thus making it void.

3. NO. It appears that petitioners did not appeal from the Court of Appeals resolutions denying the first
petition for annulment of compromise judgment and the subsequent motion for reconsideration brought by
petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 64952, as a result of which the same became final. Basic is the rule that
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but
jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment or resolution final
and executory.16 Hence, petitioners are precluded from resurrecting any issue relative to these resolutions
after they have lapsed into finality by operation of law.