G.R. No. 212938 - THE HEIRS OF ALFREDO CULLADO,[*] NAMELY LOLITA CULLADO, DOMINADOR CULLADO, ROMEO CULLADO, NOEL CULLADO, REBECCA LAMBINICIO, MARY JANE BAUTISTA AND JIMMY CULLADO, V. DOMINIC V. GUTIERREZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the [heirs of Cullado] and against [Dominic], as follows: Ordering the dismissal of the complaint. Ordering x x x Dominic Gutierrez to reconvey in favor of the Heirs of Alfredo C[u]llado the land covered and embraced by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. P-61499. SO DECIDED. On March 18, 2011, [Dominic] filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment wherein he alleged, among others, that his counsel's negligence in handling his case prevented him from participating therein and from filing his appeal. However, the same was denied by the RTC for having been filed out of time. On October 18, 2011, [Dominic] filed with [the CA a] petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. [The CA] initially dismissed [11] the petition but reinstated the same upon [Dominic]'s motion for reconsideration and gave it due course in [the CA] October 23, 2012 Resolution. [12] The CA granted the petition on the following grounds: In the action for recovery of possession filed by [Dominic], [the heirs of Cullado] in their Answer [raised as affirmative defense and not as a counterclaim, and] asked for[,] the reconveyance of the lot in issue as the same was supposedly fraudulently titled in [Dominic] 's name, considering that neither [Dominic] nor his father actually possessed or cultivated the same. These allegations constitute a collateral attack against [Dominic]'s title, which cannot be allowed in an accion publiciana . In sum, the defenses and grounds raised by [the heirs of Cullado] ascribe errors in [Dominic]'s title that would require a review of the registration decree made in [Dominic]'s favor. x x x x Clearly then, the court a quo had no jurisdiction to resolve the twin issues of reconveyance and fraudulence raised by [the heirs of Cullado] before the trial court. [13] (Emphasis supplied) The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states: WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The assailed Decision dated May 18, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela in Civil Case No. 22-805 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . SO ORDERED.