HEIRS OF MAURA SO VS OBLIOSCA, G.R. NO. 147082, JAN. 28, 2008 (Lack of Jurisdiction vs.

Exercise of
Jurisdiction)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA denying the motion for reconsideration of said decision.
The assailed decision declared that a petition for annulment of judgment cannot be availed of when the petitioner
had already filed an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Pantaleaon Jomoc was the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT and located at Cogon District, Cagayan de
Oro. When he died the property was inherited by his heirs.
In Feb. 1979, the Jomoc heirs executed a Deed of Extradjudicial Settlement with Absolute sale of registered land
in favour of petitioner Maura So, over the property for P300,000.00, but the three respondents and Maura So failed
to affix their signature on the document and it was not notarized.
The petitioner demanded the execution of a final deed of conveyance but the Jomoc heirs ignored the demand.
On Feb. 24, 1983, petitioner filed a Complaint for specific performance against the Jomoc heirs to compel them to
execute and deliver the proper registerable deed of sale over the lot.
On Feb. 28, 1983, the Jomoc hiers executed again a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale of
Registered Land in favour of the spouses Lim Liong Kang and Lim Pue King for P200,000.00.
On Feb. 12, 1988, the trial court decided the case in favour of the petitioner. On appeal the CA affirmed the
decision with the modification that the award of damages, attys fees and expenses of litigation was deleted. The
defendants heirs and the spouses Lim filed separate petitions for review with the SC which were later consolidated.
On Aug. 2, 1991, the Court rendered a Decision in these consolidated cases upholding petitioners better right over
the property.
On Feb. 10, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for execution of the said decision. The respondents opposed the
motion on the ground that they did not participate in the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial and they were not
parties to the case. The trial court granted the motion for execution. MR was filed but was also likewise denied.
On July 22, 1992, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion for execution and divesting all the Jomoc
hairs of their titles over the property.
All the Jomoc hairs filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, assailing the said order of the RTC, but was
dismissed. The resolution became final and executory.
It appears that, on Mar. 12, 1992, respondents also filed a complaint for legal redemption against petitioner with
the RTC of Misamis Oriental where respondents posited that since they did not sell their shares in the property to
petitioner, they remained co-owners, who have the right to redeem the shares sold by the other heirs. The RTC
resolved the case in favour of the respondents.
In a resolution dated Jul. 14, 1994, the RTC granted petitioners motion for reconsideration. On Nov. 14, 1994,
acting jointly on petitioners MR and respondents Compliance/Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, the RTC
rendered a resolution denying the MR.
On Dec. 28, 1994, later substituted by her heirs, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for annulment of
judgment, which reinstated the RTCs resolutions. This was denied by the CA.
The petitioners filed this petition for review.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE/S
Whether or not the honourable CA committed a reversible error in not holding that the Trial Court acted without
jurisdiction because the honourable SC had previously ruled that the lot in question had been sold twice by all the
hairs of Pantaleon to Maura So and later to the Lim spouses and said final decisions and resolution cannot be revised
and reversed by said trial court.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Petitioners argue that the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it rendered the Resolution which recognized
respondents right to redeem the property because this, in effect, amended the Decision of the Supreme Court in the
previous two cases which sustained the sale of the property to Maura So.
Petitioners clearly confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the
same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to
decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject
matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors
which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper
subject of an appeal. The error raised by petitioners pertains to the trial courts exercise of its jurisdiction, not its lack
of authority to decide the case. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioners
must shown not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of authority to hear and decide the
case. On this bases, there would be no valid ground to grant the petition for annulment of judgment.
(The complaint for legal redemption was dismissed, upholding the finality of the decision of the SC)