G.R. No. 122269 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VIVENCIO A. BANTUGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, ALAMINOS, PANGASINAN, AND HEIRS OF ZENAIDA BUSTRIA-TIGNO, REPRESENTED BY CAMILO TIGNO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (a) Declaring the plaintiff as the exclusive and absolute owner of the land in question stated in paragraph 4 of the Complaint and entitled to the exclusive and quiet possession of the said land; and (b) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P15,000.00 as attorneys fees and the sum of P500.00 per day of hearing of the counsel, plus costs. (Annex A, Petition) On January 23, 1992, Porfirio Morado filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment which was denied on July 21, 1992 for lack of merit. On July 8, 1992, a writ of execution was issued, and it was implemented by Sheriffs Manuel O. de Asis and Sheriff Cesar A. Gines. Spouses Porfirio Morado and Juliana Morado thereafter filed with this Honorable Court a Petition for Certiorari with Writ of Preliminary Injuction, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 28932. In a Resolution dated December 11, 1992, the Petition was denied for lack of merit. The related Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated February 18, 1993. (Rollo, pp. 107-112) (Underscoring omitted) [2] On April 19, 1994, petitioner, invoking §9 of B.P. Blg. 129, [3] filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for the annulment of the trial courts decision, dated December 17, 1991. Petitioner alleged that the land in question is within the classified/zonified alienable and disposable land for fishpond development, per L.C. Map No. 3175 approved on June 24, 1984, under Administrative Order No. 4-1829 and that since the land formed part of the public domain, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) has jurisdiction over its disposition in accordance with P.D. No. 704, §4. On October 4, 1995 the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition. [4] Hence, this petition for review. The judgment rendered in a case may be annulled on any of the following grounds: (a) the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law; or (b) it was obtained through extrinsic fraud. [5] The question in this case is whether the decision of the Regional Trial Court is void on any of these grounds. The preliminary question, however, is whether the government can bring such action even though it was not a party to the action in which the decision sought to be annulled was rendered. We shall deal with these questions in inverse order. First, is the question whether petitioner has personality to bring the action below. To begin with, an action to recover a parcel of land is in personam . As such, it is binding only between the parties thereto, as this Court explained in Ching v. Court of Appeals , [6] viz: An action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an action in rem or an action against the whole world, like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will; it is an action in personam , so much so that a judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunit