Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEAL Manila

FORMER SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

- versus -

CA. G.R.SP No. 70014

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY, BRANCH 111, PRESIDED BY HON. ERNESTO REYES, ANACLETO MADRIGAL ACOPIADO, ANACLETO MADRIGAL ACOP, JULIAN M. TALLANO, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN, IN GUIGUINTO, BULACAN Respondents,

MEMORANDUM FOR JULIAN M. TALLANO XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

COME NOW the private respondent JULIAN M. TALLANO (Prince for brevity) in the above-entitled case, by undersigned LEAD and COLLABORATING COUNSEL,

to esteem Honorable FORMER SECOND DIVISION of the Honorable Court, in COMPLIANCE to the RESOLUTION issued by esteem Court, the duplicate copy received on October 17, 2006, with the directive that the parties are to SUBMIT their memorandum within thirty (30) days from receipt thus, the expiry date is on November 15, 2006, hence, most respectfully SUBMIT this MEMORANDUM FOR JULIAN M. TALLANO a.k.a. Prince JULIAN M. TALLANO.

PREFATORY FACTS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The record of this case a quo, are ensconced into twenty-one (21) volumes brought to the Paras Hall, Court of Appeals, by OIC, Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. III, at Pasay City, wherein the herein petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, are among the parties litigants in the consolidated LRC No. 997/Civil Case No. 3957-P, with then former presiding Judges of public respondent Court, esteem Hon. Enrique Agana and Hon. Sofronio Sayo, who rendered DECISIONS, ORDERS, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, WRIT OF EXECUTION, DEMOLITION & POSSESSION, CERTIFICATE OF SHERIFFS RETURN LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, COPIES OF RECONSTITUTED Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-408 & T-498, and ORDER OF THIRD ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION AND DEMOLITION. Among the judicial RESOLVED and undertakings thereon are hereunder, interalia: 1. Decision With Compromise with the government, thru the OSG, on February 4, 1972 issued in the Land Registration Case, LRC No. 997-P, for the reconstitution of OCT No. 01-4, filed by the Government thru the OSG, which was consolidated with LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P, for reaffirmation and confirmation of ownership, possesory rights of Prince Julian Mcleod Tallano, Don Esteban Benitez Tallano or their successors in interest said DECISION is exempted from the required five (5) years prescriptive period and tax exemptions thereof, reaffirmation of TCT No. T-408 and TCT No. T-498; reaffirmation of the Tax Declaration of the landholdings of registered owners of TCTS Nos. T-408 and T-498; and of its approved Plan, Psu-2031; reaffirmed CASH Vouchers rentals by of the Republic of the Philippines in favor of owners thereof.
2

2. Clarificatory Order dated March 21, 1974, which reiterated and clarified the distribution of the property covered by OCT No. 01-4 by donations and conveyance to several private individuals, etc., government, etc.: Thereafter and within the ambit of the foregoing, pursuant to, and in accordance with, the above Decisions and Orders, the respondent Court issued the following: 3. Decision dated November 4, 1975, wherein a portion of the Estate embraced by OCT No. 01-4 is in favor of a certain Anacleto Madrigal Acopiado, (whose real identity is Anacleto MONTANEZ ACOPIADO); misrepresenting himself as the intervenor ANACLETO MADRIGAL ACOP; 4. Clarificatory Decision dated January 19, 1976, which corrected and changed the above decision of November 4, 1974; 5. Entry of Judgment of June 14, 1972, entered into the Book of Judgment, which refers to the finality of the Decision With Compromise; 6. Entry of Judgment of June 14, 1972, entered into the Book of Judgment, the validity of the reconstitution of OCT No. 01-4 and its derivatives, TCT No. 408 and TCT No. 498; 7. Writ of Execution, Demolition and Possession of September 10, 1974, in which the intervenor JULIAN M. TALLANO sought the enforcement of the already final and executory Decisions; 8. Certificate of Sheriffs Return of November 17, 1974, showing partial execution by Sheriff Herminio Ubana, assisted by the PNP and Barangay Officials, that JULIAN M. TALLANO was place in actual physical possession over the recovered landholdings, thereof; 9. Thence, Letters of Administration of July 7, 1976 which vest unto JULIAN M. TALLANO, administratorship over the ESTATES of Don Gregorio Madrigal Acop & Don Esteban Benitez Tallano; 10. Thereafter, issuance of the copy of duly reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-408 in the name of Don Gregorio Madrigal Acop;

11. Likewise, issuance of the copy of another duly reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-498 in the name of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano; 12. The Order of Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession & Demolition dated May 28, 1989, issued by esteem Honorable Judge SOFRONIO SAYO who took over after the retirement of esteem Honorable Judge Enrique Agana. Ruefully on January 18, 1992, the City Hall of Pasay City, which house the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch III was burned, thus, some of the court records thereat, of LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, were destroyed and burned, which unfortunately included the above enumerated DECISIONS, ORDERS, WRITS and others in said case. With the unexpected turn of events supra, particularly JULIAN M. TALLANO took the cudgels for the reconstitution of the destroyed, burned, terminated court records of LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch III, at Pasay City, issued by former Presiding Judges Hon. Enrique Agana and Hon. Sofronio Sayo, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 135, Section 5 (h) Revised Rules of Court, in refrain: *** *** ***

Section 5. Inherent powers of courts-Every Court shall have power: xxx xxx (h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading, or other paper to be filed and used instead of the original and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings *** *** ***

RELEVANT FACTS ON RECONSTITUTION OF TERMINATED PROCEEDINGS IN LRC/ CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, RTC, Br. III, Pasay City xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As earlier said, after the fire on January 18, 1992, which gutted, destroyed and burned down the Old Pasay City Hall, reason for which the Presiding Judge, Honorable ERNESTO A. REYES, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch III, at Pasay City, has issued numerous Orders on reconstitution of terminated proceedings earlier issued by the Presiding Judges, Honorable Enrique Agana & Honorable Sofronio Sayo, of the Court of First Instance, 7th Judicial Region, Branch XXVIII (now RTC, Branch III), Pasay City, hereunder: *** *** ***

a) Order dated July 7, 1997, directing and ordering the reconstitution of judicial resolved in said LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, particularly, the DECISION dated November 4, 1975; b) Order dated July 11, 2001, ordering and directing the reconstitution of the following documents, vis--vis: 1) Decision With Compromise Agreement dated February 4, 1972; 2) Clarificatory Order dated March 21, 1974; 3) Clarificatory Decision dated January 19, 1976; 4) Third alias Writ of Execution, Possession and Demolition dated May 23, 1989; 5) Writ of Execution, Demolition and Possession dated September 10, 1974; 6) Certification November 17, 1974; of Sheriffs Return dated

7) Certified True Photocopy of TCT No. T-408;

5

8) Certified True Photocopy of TCT No. T-498; 9) Letters of Administration dated June 14, 1972; 10) Entry of Judgment dated June 14, 1972. c) Order dated October 8, 2001, which denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General on July 21, 2001 for the setting aside of the Order of July 11, 2001; d) Certificate of Finality dated November 12, 2001, to the effect that the Order of July 11, 2001 became final and executory as of November 7, 2001, reckoned from October 22, 2001, fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Order dated October 8, 2001, by the Solicitor General; e) Order dated December 12, 2001, which directed the Register of Deeds of Rizal for compliance with the decretal pronouncement of the final Order of July 11, 2001; f) Order dated December 19, 2001, in denial of the motion for reconsideration dated December 13, 2001, filed by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, and reiterating for said Office for compliance to the Order of July 11, 2001, otherwise, the Court will impose appropriate sanctions; g) The record of the case a quo, reflect that on reconstitution aspect of the judicial resolved, undertaken before same Regional Trial Court, Branch III, at Pasay City, in LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, sad to state, that while there was active participation by the Solicitor General (OSG for brevity) in the foregoing court proceedings, with resultant Orders, as shown above, ruefully, however, the OSG did not file and/or avail of the appropriate procedural remedies, viz: a. b. c. d. *** of new trial; appeal; petitions for reliefs; or other allowable remedies therefor. ***
6

***

Due to inaction, as OSG folded its arms thereof, all of the enumerated Orders of July 11, 2001, October 8, 2001, December 12, 2001 & December 19, 2001 had become FINAL and EXECUTORY. Truth is there was partial execution thereof, the 1st of which refer to: a. Reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-408 (Judicial Form No. 109, Revised August 1988), in Book No. T-34; Page 11, wherein under the MEMORANDUM OF ENCUMBRANCES, with annotations thereon, hereunder *** *** ***

Entry Nos. 596, 597, 606, etc. Pursuant to the Decisions, Clarificatory Decisions rendered by the Court of the First Instance of Rizal, Branch 28, Pasay City, Regional Trial Court Branch III, Pasay City in Civil Case No. LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P, Reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title No. 408, was issued based on certified copy thereof. Per order of the same court dated July 11, 2001, October 8, 2001 and December 12, 2001, the court enjoined this office to comply immediately the decretal pronouncement of the final order July 11, 2001. Date of the instrument Feb. 4, 1972; March 21, 1974; Sept. 10, 1974; Jan. 19, 1975; May 23, 1989. Date of Inscription: Dec. 14, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. Entry No. 607 IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY COUPLED WITH INTEREST: Conferred by Julian M. Tallano in favor of Romeo Cervantes Campos, granting the attorney-in fact power to make representation with govt. offices, transacts or negotiate for the sale, sign, execute documents pertaining to the properties described there. Other powers are setforth in Doc. No. 8834, pp. 68, Bk. 29, series of 2001 of Notary Public for Makati City, Danilo B. Baares, dated April 24, 2001. Date of Inscription: Dec. 14, 2001 at 3:10 p.m.

(Sgd) ROLANDO G. GOLLA Deputy Register of Deeds, Rizal NOTE: The reconstitution of this Certificate of title is further effected pursuant to the Order of the Court (Branch III, Pasay City, Civil Case No. 3957-P) dated December 19, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by this office (Entry No. 673).

***

***

***

The PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT dated April 5, 2002 has anchorage under Section 9 (2) of the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980 and Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for the annulment of the DECISIONS/ORDERS/Titles
7

Processes, other Documents which were reconstituted in LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch III, in Pasay City, to wit: 1. Decision With Compromise Agreement dated February 4, 1972; 2. Clarificatory Order dated March 21, 1974; 3. Decision dated November 4, 1975; 4. Clarificatory Decision dated January 19, 1976; 5. Entry of Judgment dated June 14, 1972; 6. Writ of Execution, Demolition and Possession dated September 10, 1974; 7. Certificate of Sheriffs Return dated November 17, 1974; 8. Letters of Administration dated July 7, 1976; 9. Certified True Photocopy of TCT No. T-408; 10. Certified True Photocopy of TCT No. T-498; 11. Order of Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession and Demolition dated May 28, 1989; 12. Order of July 7, 1997; 13. Order of July 11, 2001; 14. Order of October 8, 2001. We observed as we notice that the twin Orders dated December 12, 2001 and December 19, 2001, were not included, among the challenge judicial undertakings on reconstitution aspect by the petitioners, despite its knowledge, said twin Orders, became the basis in the reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-408 with annotations under the MEMORANDUM OF ENCUMBRANCES, supra, by the Register of Deeds of Rizal at Pasig City ---to have issued said TCT No. T-408 the first on partial execution on enforcement of the FINAL and EXECUTORY ORDER dated July 11, 2001.

We humbly SUBMIT, the herein PETITION is with perfidy purposely to waylaid esteem Honorable Court, shown and alleged under the nomenclature: NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION, as follows: a) Primo, the petition seek the annulment of decisions, orders, writ, etc. of more than thirty (30) years ago, as resultant judicial undertakings in LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXVIII, at Pasay City. b) Segundo, the petition in the same breathe, seek for the annulment of the Orders dated July 7, 1997, July 11, 2001 and October 8, 2001, albeit anchor petitioners right, as the reckoning period well within the period of four (4) years, under Section 3, Rule 47, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Pls. see: pp. 5-12 inclusive, Petition) Verily, as shown, there are but three (3) legal grounds which refer to the issuance of the Orders dated July 7, 1997, of July 11, 2001 and October 8, 2001, on the propriety and legality on issuance thereof, by Judge Ernesto A. Reyes, on the reconstitution of the resultant judicial undertakings by esteem Honorable Judge Enrique Agana and Sofronio Sayo Before Us, while the petitioners has posited eight (8) grounds as ISSUES in support of its petition, after a thorough evaluation of the same, Ground V, VI & VII thereof being interrelated and/or intertwined, are group under the heading: COURT A QUO WITH JURISDICTION ON ORDERS OF RECONSTITUTION OF JULY 7, 1997, JULY 11, 2001, AND OCTOBER 8, 2001, SAME WITHOUT EXTRINSIC FRAUD. Whereas, Grounds I, II, III, VI & VIII thereof, likewise inter-related are group under the heading: COURT A QUO WITH JURISDICTION ON DECISIONS, ORDERS, WRIT, ISSUED IN 1972 TO 1989. Needless to say, according to the petitioners, esteem Honorable Presiding Judge Ernesto A. Reyes of the Regional Trial Court, Branch III, at Pasay City, did not comply with the procedural requirements on reconstitution of Court records, with emphasis on jurisdictional essences for reconstitution as provided by Republic Act No. 26 and further prescription has set in on enforceability of the resultant judicial resolved, then issued by esteem Honorable Judges Enrique Agana & Sofronio Sayo, from 1972 to 1989.
9

Doubtless, again, according to the petitioner, all of the judicial resolved made by both Judges Agana & Sayo---on its Decisions, Orders, Writs, Processes are with infirmities, the same were issued in an ordinary civil case which included reconstitution of OCT No. 01-4 and of subsequent TCT No. T-408 & TCT No. T-498, the latter not in a land registration case;

Still further, the petitioner trumphets that there is absent of requisite publication, of notices to all occupants and/or to persons in possession of the landholdings embraced in the reconstituted OCT & TCTs and to all other adjoining properties owners, etc., since the reconstituted OCT No. 01-4, TCTs Nos. T-408 & T-498 albeit spurious, would be collateral attack on all other titles affected thereby in the Philippines;

In SUM, since the petitioner availed of the provisions of Rule 47 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and seek refuge under Section 3 of the same Rule, the petition for annulment of indorsement is within the allowable period of four (4) years, reckoned from October 22, 2006 from DENIAL of the reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General of the earlier Order dated July 11, 2001;

With the foregoing, JULIAN M. TALLANO (the Prince for brevity), private respondent consider the ISSUE:

WHETHER THE CHALLENGE ORDERS DATED JULY 7, 1997, JULY 11, 2006 AND OCTOBER 8, 2001 BY HONORABLE JUDGE REYES IN RECONSTITUTION OF THE DECISIONS, ORDERS, WRITS, PROCESSES ISSUED BY HONORABLE JUDGES AGANA AND SAYO IN 1972 TO 1989, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW.

ARGUMENTS

Whether the challenge Orders dated July 7, 1997, July 11, 2001 and October 8, 2001 by Hon. Judge Reyes on reconstitution of the Decisions, Orders, Writs, Processes issued by Honorable Judges AGANA and SAYO in 1972 to 1989 within the bounds of law.
10

To RECALL, in the scheduled hearing on April 7, 2006, Mr. Ricardo R. Adolfo, OIC, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch III, at Pasay City, brought inside the Paras Hall, twenty-one (21) volumes of the court records of LRC/CIVIL CASE No. 3957-P, the subject-matter in the PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, under consideration hereof. In the occasion, aforenamed OIC-Clerk of Court testified on the said court records in said LRC/CIVIL CASE, which he presented and identified in open Court, confirming the authenticity and due execution of all the judicial undertakings ensconced into the said 21 Volumes, afterwhich, on each and every Volumes, the respective COMMENTS is made by the Office of the Solicitor General, thru Solicitor Thomas M. Laragon, whereas, Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba, Lead Counsel, and Atty. Pacifico C. Yadao, collaborating counsel, represented Prince Julian M. Tallano, albeit, Atty. Jacoba being the Lead Counsel, made COMMENT on the said 21 Volumes. The 21 Volumes of Court record in LRC/CIVL CASE 3957-P, are positive proof that indeed eversince respondent Court acquired jurisdiction, over the case at bar; The foregoing find support in the cited case of Arcelona vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 20,45, in the RESOLUTION dated February 20, 2003 issued by esteem SPECIAL FORMER SECOND DIVISION in this very case at bar, with esteem Honorable Justice Marina L. Buzon as the Ponente, the key portion in refrain:

***

***

***

As pointed out in Arcelona vs, Court of Appeals, involving an independent action to declare null and void a judgement rendered without jurisdiction, it was held that the nullity of a judgement grounded on lack of jurisdiction may be shown not only by what patendly documentary and testimonial evidence found in the records of the case and upon which such judgement is based. Consequently, there is a need to examine the records of Civil case No. 3957-P and a hearing held for said purpose to determine whether respondent court acquired jurisdiction over said case. (Underscoring, Ours) *** *** ***

11

The private respondents Prince, subscribing to the wisdom laid down by esteem Honorable SPECIAL FORMER SECOND DIVISION (now FORMER SECOND DIVISION), in said earlier RESOLUTION dated February 20, 2003 a judicial gem, comes to mind, as timely applicable in the case at barInterest can guide the lips of man; documents, however, speaks a uniform language (Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro) Needless to say, the admitted court records in Civil Case No. 3957 before the Court of First Instance, Branch XXVIII (now Regional Trial Court, Branch III) at Pasay City---then presided by Honorable Judges AGANA and SAYO, which has accumulated into 21 Volumes, brought to Paras Hall Court of Appeals on April 7, 2006, presented, identified and testified by OIC-Clerk of Court, Mr. Ricardo R. Adolfo, of the RTC, Branch III, Pasay City, that all; judicial court records are authentic and duly executed thereof, are documents which speaks a uniform language ---whereby as examined, with comments pro & con thereon by Solicitor Thomas M. Laragon for the Republic of the Philippines and on the other hand by Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba, Lead Counsel for Prince Julian M. Tallano---gives us no other conclusion that indeed respondent Court acquired jurisdiction over Case No. 3957; On extrinsic fraud which is the second ground on annulment of judgement, it is our humble submission, it is the act which prevented the unsuccessful party from fully, and fairly presenting his case and of defenses; it must be such as prevented the losing party from having an adversary trial of the issue. Thus, the act of the successful party in including the lawyer of the losing party to commit professional delinquency or infidelity is what constitute extrinsic fraud, decided as it was in Laxamana vs, Court of Appeals L-37317, November 04, 1978, 87 SCRA 56; Needless to say, by extrinsic fraud is meant some act or conduct of the prevailing party which has prevented a fair submission of the controversy, as ruled in Francisco vs. David 38 OG 714; Doubtless, extrinsic fraud is a fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant which prevents a party from having his day in court or from presenting his case, in Farinas vs. Farinas, L-53864-R, July 28, 1978. The constitutive essence for extrinsic fraud to exist is not present in all of the judicial proceedings and/or undertakings by respondent Court, reckoned from initiatory pleading by contending parties in Civil Case No. 3957-P, upon motion by the Republic of the Philippines (one among the impleaded defendants therein) and of intervenor BENITO A. TALLANO, the government was ably represented by the
12

Solicitor General, culminating to a DECISION WITH COMPROMISE AGREEMENT dated February 4, 1972; Thereafter, are the subsequent resultant judicial undertakings in respondent Court, vis--vis: a. Entry of Judgment dated February 4, 1972 immediately executory is the Decision With Compromise Agreement, entered as FINAL on April 4, 1972. b. Writ of Execution, Demolition and Possession Order dated September 10, 1974; c. Clarificatory Decision dated January 19, 1976; d. Order dated January 19, 1979, which refer to the DENIAL of the Motion For Reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines---due to failure to have conformed substantially to the prescribed Rules therefor; e. Sheriffs Return dated May 4, 1989, which affirmed the right of JULIAN M. TALLANO as the lawful owner over the landholdings, embodied in the Deed of Absolute Sale by Anacleto Madrigal Acop on December 20, 1971 and January 5, 1972 over an area of 33,300 hectares, covered by TCT No. T-408, also, by virtue of a deed of Absolute Sale on January 5, 1972 by Don Esteban Benitez Tallano, covered by TCT No. T-498. Thus, ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION AND DEMOLITION effected, as implemental, resulting to turn over and possession to JULIAN M. TALLANO of all landholdings as embodied in the designated areas of places enumerated therein. We respectfully and humbly SUBMIT, that in no occasion the government deprived of its right on due process, because as shown from the records of Civil Case 3957 hereof,---ensconced into the early volumes, now accumulated into 21 Volumes brought to the Paras Hall, Court of Appeals in the hearing date of April 7, 2006, supra; So that, in conformity to the wisdom of esteem Honorable Justice Marina L. Buzon, the ponente in the RESOLUTION promulgated on February 20, 2003 by esteem Honorable SPECIAL FORMER SECOND DIVISION which at the risks of repetitious verbiage to settle once and for all the ISSUES of ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT:
13

a) on jurisdiction; b) on extrinsic fraud; c) on laches or estoppel; d) on collateral attach. Which are the same grounds put forward by the petitioner in this case at bar, we SUBMIT, that the controlling and applicable case of Marcelino Arcelona, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 102900 promulgated on October 2, 1997, Third Division, Supreme Court, 280 SCRA 20 to 58, with now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the ponente thereof, it was held: *** *** ***

As correctly put by petitioners, we hold that Respondent Court of Appeals, in deciding the petition to declare the judgment void, cannot consider extraneous matters to vary what the records bear. In other words, the Court of Appeals cannot annul or declare null the assailed decision with such extraneous matters. The validity or nullity of the said decision must stand or fall on its own face and evidence on record. In an action to declare a judgment void because of lack of jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, only evidence found in the records of the case can justify the annulment of the said judgment. Contrariwise, the nullity of the judgment due to lack of jurisdiction may be proved at most by the evidence on record but never by extraneous evidence. Se. Vicente J. Francisco aptly explains this in his treatise on the Rules of Court. The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Civil Procedure, Rule 20-39, Volume H, 1966 edition, pp. 547-548. *** *** ***

In cases of collateral attack the principles that apply have been stated as follows: The legitimate province of collateral impeachment is void judgments. There and there alone can it meet with any measure of success. Decision bears this import; In every case the field of collateral inquiry is narrowed down to the single issue concerning the void character of the judgment and the
14

assailant is called upon to satisfy the court that such is the fact. To compass his purpose of overthrowing the judgment, it is not enough that he shows a mistaken or erroneous decision or a record disclosing nonjurisdictional irregularities in the proceedings leading up to the judgment. He must go beyond this and show to the court, generally from the fact of the record itself, and not by extraneous evidence that the judgment complained of is utterly void. If he can do that his attack will succeed for the cases leave no doubts respecting the right of a litigant to collaterally impeach a judgment that he can prove to be void. The reason for the rule of exclusion of extraneous proof to show that the judgment complained of is utterly void for lack of jurisdiction has been expressed in the following words: The doctrine that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined by the record alone, thereby excluding extraneous proof seems to be natural unavoidable result of that stamp of authenticity which, from the earliest times, was placed upon the record, and which gave it such uncontrollable credit and verify that no plea, proof, or averment could be heard to the in its results, since to permit the courts record to be contradicted or varied by evidence dehors would render such records of no avail and definite sentences would afford but slight protection to the rights of parties once solemnly adjudicated. *** *** ***

Similarly true, on ISSUE of EXTRINSIC FRAUD, the same was ruled thereby, to wit: *** *** ***

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act committed by a prevailing party outside the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case, because of fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. As distinctly
15

defined in Cosmic Lumber Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.. There is extrinsic fraud within the meaning of Sec. 9, par. (2), of B.P. Blg. 129, where it is one the effect of which prevents a party from hearing a trial, or real contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters, not pertaining to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, (fn: Makabingkil v. PHHC, No. L-29080, 17 August 1976, 72 SCRA 326, 343-344) Fraud is extrinsic where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing. (fn: Id., p. 344 citing U.S. v. Throckmorton, 25 L. Ed. 93.95) In declaring the petition for annulment of judgment which should be a petition to declare judgment void Respondent Court of Appeals should not have considered the following matters which find no support from the records and are thus considered extraneous : (1) the assumption that petitioners knew of the five-year lease contract with private respondent and pendency of Civil Case No. D-7140 from 1984 to 1991; (2) the testimony of Juan Bernal in a desparate criminal case before another court concerning the authority granted to Olanday, et al., and where the petitioners were not parties.
16

The rule is that the nullity of the decision arising from the records of the case. And the validity of the judgment cannot be anchored on mere suppositions or speculating. *** *** ***

It is our humble SUBMISSION, the 21 Volumes of the records of this case a quo, Civil Case No. 3957, before the respondent Court, physically brought to Paras Hall, Court of Appeals, presented, identified in open Court, during the proceedings had on April 7, 2006, by OIC-Clerk of Court of respondent Court, and the confirming the authenticity and due execution thereof of the resultant judicial undertakings---all contained approprietness, integrity of the respondent Court, presided by Honorable Judges AGANA, SAYO and REYES in issuance of resultant judicial undertakings in said LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P. Doubtless, the 21 Volumes on judicial court records before respondent Court, are mute witness on the legality of judicial proceedings that transpired; thereat, which will answer all legal aspects of the proceedings, had pro or con, thus, as earlier said, will settle once and for all, the validity or nullity of challenge decisions, orders, writs, processes, rendered by respondent Court, which must stand or fall on its face on the evidence on record. It simply means, the doctrine that the questions of jurisdiction is to be determined by the record alone, thereby excluding extraneous proof seems to be the natural unavoidable result of that stamp authenticity which, from the earliest times, was placed upon the record and which gave it such uncontrollable credit and verify that no plea, proof, or averment could be heard to the contrary. So, on abject failure of the Republic of the Philippines, to have availed of the appropriate remedies allowed by procedural Rules, after receipt of the Order dated January 19, 1979, thus, inaction therefrom for more than twenty-five (25) years, verify the Republic of the Philippines cannot feign ignorance of procedural rules on finality of judgment of: a) the Decision With Compromise Agreement of February 4, 1972; b) the Entry of Judgment of the Decision With Compromise Agreement which became FINAL on April 4, 1972; c) the Clarificatory Decision dated January 19, 1976;
17

d) the Order of January 19, 1979 DENYING motion of reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines; e) Sheriffs Return dated May 4, 1989 of resultant enforcement of the Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. for which we PLEA that recourse be from the Court Records of the respondent Court in Civil Court Case No. 3957---the cradle of life of said case, which reveal active participation of the Republic of the Philippines thru the Solicitor General. To RECALL, the only remaining issue which necessitate discussion, amplification and clarification refer to the reconstitution of court records of LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P before respondent Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch III of Pasay City, this time, presided by Honorable Judge REYES, as a result of the conflagration of January 18, 1992, reason for which, as earlier said, Prince JULIAN M. TALLANO, initiated and filed on April 19, 2001 a verified PETITION for the reconstitution of records of the case, which were either burned, lost, destroyed, as result of the fire, supra, and procedurally the office of the Solicitor General ( OSG for brevity), the Land Registration Administration (LRA for brevity), including other concerned government agencies were furnished copies of the Petition and duly notified of the date and time of the hearing and reset to another day. Thereafter, same petitioner JULIAN M. TALLANO filed a Motion For The Taking of Deposition On Oral Examination of retired Judge Sofronio G. Sayo, ex-Judge of the same Court. Again, the OSG was furnished of the said motion. Ruefully, despite NOTICES to the OSG and other government agencies, all failed to appear on designated date of hearing. Worse, no pleading whatsoever is filed by OSG and of other government agencies concerned, in opposition thereto. Thus, respondent Court issued an Order granting the taking of the deposition on oral examination of retired Judge Sofronio G. Sayo at latters residence to take place on June 6, 2001, morning and again, NOTICE and the Order therefor were furnished to the OSG. Similarly true, despite NOTICE and ORDER furnished to the OSG, no Solicitor appeared and also, no opposition whatsoever ever filed by it. And on hearing of the PETITION for reconstitution on June 22, 2001, morning session petitioner with counsel appeared, however, no Solicitor appeared, muchless any written opposition thereto.

18

Without recourse and on motion of petitioner Julian M. Tallano, the Petition was GRANTED and for the latter to adduce his evidence EX-PARTE, and after testimony thereof and presentation of evidence therefor and importantly of petitioners exhibit C & D the transcribed stenographic notes and Commissioners Report on the matter of the DEPOSITION proceedings thereof, wherein retired Judge Sofronio Sayo affirmed that he has issued the 3rd Alias Writ of Execution, Possession, Demolition dated May 23, 1989 and affirmed his signature thereon on the certified photocopy of the Order; likewise confirmed that he (Judge Sayo) executed the duly authorized certification and submarkings thereon; also, attesting to the veracity and genuineness of his signature in said Order of Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession and Demolition, all these galvanized JULIAN M. TALLANOs claim, that the submitted documents indeed form part of the records of the case, more so, were basically the source of life upon which the Order of the Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession, and Demolition was indeed substantially and conformably issued on May 23, 1989, thus, respondent Court granted the reconstitution of ten (10) resultant judicial resolved and under ```````takings as duly reconstituted, with the same force, validity and effect as that of the destroyed original copies, all enumerated in the Order of July 11, 2001, the decretal portion, in refrain:

***

***

***

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the following documents duly appended to the petition are hereby reconstituted as integral part of the records of this case and shall carry the same force, validity and effect as that of the destroyed original copy in particular, these documents are: 1. Decision With Compromise Agreement dated February 4, 1972; consisting of 139 pages (Exh. I and its submarkings); 2. Clarificatory Order dated March 21, 1974 consisting of 30 pages (Exh. H and submarkings); 3. Clarificatory Decision dated January 19, 1976 consisting of 60 pages (Exh. I sic 58 pages); 4. Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession, and Demolition dated May 23, 1989 consisting of 55 pages (Exh. A );
19

5. Writ of Execution, Demolition, and Possession dated September 10, 1974 consisting of 14 pages (Exh. J and its submarkings); 6. Certification of Sheriffs Return dated November 17, 1974 consisting of 7 pages (Exh. K and its submarkings); 7. Certified True Photocopy of TCT No. T-408 marked as Exh. L, consisting of 7 pages; 8. Certified True Photocopy of TCT No. T-498 and marked as Exh. M consisting of 7 pages; 9. Letter of Administration dated June 14, 1972 marked as Exh. E ; 10. Entry of judgment dated June 14, 1972 marked as Exh. G and its submarkings consisting of 7 pages. Accordingly the concerned government agencies particularly the Land Registration Administration and the Registry of Deeds mentioned in the Third Alias Writ of Execution are hereby directed to comply with the decretal pronouncements of the executory judgments and orders of the Court previously issued and which were specifically setforth and embodied in the Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession, and Demolition dated May 23, 1989. *** *** ***

We SUBMIT, the judicial undertakings on reconstitution conducted by Honorable Judge REYES of the respondent Court is with the blessing as it is provided for with Rule 124, Section 5 (h) of the Rules of Court (now Rule 135 Section 5 (h) of the Rules of Court), and as ruled in Testate Estate of the Deceased Maria Jacoba Cruz, Lutgarda Yatco, et al., vs. Daniel F. Cruz, et al., in R-G.R. No. 46500, consolidated, in the Matter of the Estate of the Deceased Maria Jacoba Cruz; Francisco C. Yatco, et al., vs. Adriano F. Crua, et al., in R.G.R. No. 48114, promulgated on December 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 1077 to 1084, wherein the Supreme Court, held:
20

***

***

***

Judgments; Reconstitution of Supreme Court decisions under Rule 124, Section 5 (h); Production of authentic copies not necessary; Evidence sufficient to prove contents of lost or destroyed document deemed sufficient. In a petition for the reconstitution of the decision of the Supreme Court in a case already decided, neither Republic Act No. 441 nor Act No. 3110 is applicable because these refer to pending cases and pending judicial proceedings. Courts have inherent power to reconstitute at any time the records of their finished cases in accordance with Rule 124, Section 5 (hO, of the Rules of Court. (Allingag vs. Del Valle-Cruz, R.G.R. No. 47766, April 13, 1959). In said reconstitution it is not essential nor necessary that an authentic copy be produced to reconstitute the decision. Evidence sufficient to prove the contents of a lost or destroyed document in accordance with the rules of evidence is sufficient (Rule 123, Section 51). The Decision of this Court in the first case appears in an issue of the Lawyers Journal, a legal publication dedicated to publishing copies of decisions directly secured from this Court. In the second case, the Court is satisfied with the correctness of the simple copy submitted in view of the certification of its correctness and truthfulness by the writer of the decision, a former justice of the court, whose memory the present members of this Court can attest to. Besides, the records on appeal in both cases appear to be authentic, and the decisions coordinate with the nature of the issues presented in the proceedings leading up to their rendition. Furthermore, a study of the decision in relation to the judgments appealed from and the pleadings on which they are based, gives no reason to doubt that the simple copy is correct, and if not authentic, is sufficiently exact to satisfy beyond doubt the reasonable scruples of any unprejudiced mind. Rep. Act No. 441 approved June 7, 1950 is cited in support of this objection, thus: Section 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Act Numbered Three thousand one hundred and ten,
21

the party or parties interested in any case pending in the court the records of which have been destroyed by reason of the last Pacific War may file a petition for the reconstitution of such records, x x x In answer to the above objection the petitioners for reconstitution argue that the provisions of Republic Act No. 441 are not being availed of in the proceeding at bar as said Act (R.A. No. 441), as its title indicates, refers to pending cases, whereas the records of cases that had already been decided. Neither are the provisions of Act No. 3110 applicable in this proceeding because this act also governs the reconstitution of pending judicial proceedings, etc., as witness the title of the act which is as follows: AN ACT TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE RECORDS OF PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND BOOKS, DOCUMENTS, AND FILES OF THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS DESTROYED BY FIRE OR OTHER PUBLIC CALAMITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. *** *** ***

The foregoing clarified the misconception and/or wrong interpretation by the petitioner that the reconstitution of the earlier resultant judicial resolved and undertakings by Honorable Judges AGANA and SAYO as undertaken by respondent Court, through Honorable Judge REYES in its reconstitution Orders of July 7, 1997, July 11, 2001, and October 8, 2001 --- do not require publication, notices to adjoining owners and other persons with structures, pursuant to Rep. Act 26, because as shown above, the thrust of the Order of July 11, 2001, refer to court records of recent past, that is, those Decisions, Orders, Writs, Processes issued in the year 1972 to 1989 by respondent Court, then presided by Honorable Judges AGANA AND SAYO, which is pursuant to Rule 135, Section 5 (h) Revised Rules of Court, then, under Rule 124, Section 5 (h) Rules of Court, sans the requisites under Rep. Act No. 26.

22

All TOLD, may the worse in time in the life of Prince JULIAN M. TALLANO be the best in his life time, the four (4) winds with his sails, with the judicial succor of esteem Honorable FORMER SECOND DIVISION, of the Honorable Court, for ultimately truth has eventually dazzle its eternal light, with Gods millenium radiant smile. ACCORDINGLY

PRAYED FORTH: of esteem Honorable FORMER SECOND DIVISION of the Honorable Court, that with this MEMORANDUM FOR JULIAN M. TALLANO whose true identity confirmed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI for brevity) Report as the same person of Julian M. Tallano, Intervenor in this case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch III, et al., thus, reaffirmed in the Resolution promulgated on July 15, 2005, most respectfully PLEA that the PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT be DENIED, as it should be DISMISSED, for lack of merit, afterwhich, the injunctive writ be lifted and set aside, and on status quo respondent JULIAN M. TALLANO pray for such other relief and remedy, as in EQUITY and JUSTICE proceed. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City for Manila, November 14, 2006. JACOBA VELASCO JACOBA LAW OFFICE ELLIS JACOBA, OLIVIA VELASCO-JACOBA, MANUEL NATIVIDAD, JR., VICENTE TAGOC, JR., VIRGILIO PAPA PACIFICO C. YADAO Counsel for JULIAN MORDEN TALLANO

By:

(Sgd) ELLIS F. JACOBA Lead Counsel Cabanatuan City

23

(Sgd) PACIFICO C. YADAO Collaborating Counsel 10 Caragay Street, SFDM, Quezon City PTR-A 7231293; Quezon City; Jan 12, 2006 IBP 645990; Quezon City; Jan. 26, 2006 Roll of Attorney # 6552; January 18, 1954 Explanation On Mode Of Service

Due to time constraint, coupled by lack of messengerial personnel of the LAW OFFICE, the corresponding copies of adversarial counsel, and office concerned are furnished by PHILPOST SERVICE by registered mail.

24

Republic of the Philippines) Quezon City, Metro Manila) x--------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF PROOF OF SERVICE That I, ANTONIO BLANCO, Officer-Clerk of Atty. Pacifico C. Yadao, with office address at No. Caragay St., SFDM, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to under OATH, do hereby depose and say: That on November 15, 2006, I served the following papers thru PHILPOST service by registered mail in accordance with Section 3, 5, and 7 in relation to Section 10 of Rule 14 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and due to distance constraint and lack of messengerial personnel of the office.

Nature of the Pleading/Paper MEMORANDUM FOR JULIAN M. TALLANO in CA-G.R. SP No. 70014 entitled REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES versus REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY, BRANCH III, NOW PRESIDED BY THE HON. ERNESTO A. REYES, ET AL., by depositing the copies of the Post Office in sealed brown envelope plainly address to party or his/her attorney at his office/ residence with postal mail by Registry Receipt No. ________; ________; and ________; herewith attached and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. That the addressee(s) are as follows: The Honorable Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court, Branch III City of Pasay The Solicitor General Office of the Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City

(Sgd) ANTONIO C. BLANCO, JR. CTC No. 3840574 Quezon City; Jan. 16, 2004 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 15th day of November, 2006, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines. Doc. No. 50; Page No. 11; Book No. XCII; Series of 2006. 25