MESINA

V MEER
FACTS:
1. Humberto Meer is a registered owner of a land.
2. When he applied for a loan to construct a house thereon, he found out that
his certificate of title has been cancelled and a new one was issued in the
name of Spouses Bunquin
o Spouses Bunquin acquired title to the land by virtue of deed of sale
purportedly executed by Meer in their favor
3. Meer sought the cancellation of Spouses Bunquins title with the MeTC.
4. While the case was pending, the title of Spouses Bunquin was issued in the
name of Spouses Mesina. Spouses Bunquin conveyed to the Spouses Mesina
the land by way of Deed of Sale
5. Meer impleaded the Spouses Mesina as additional party defendants.
6. Spouses Bunquin did not appear in the hearings and was subsequently
declared in default.
7. MeTCs decision: Declared the sale between Spouses Bunquin and Meer to be
fraudulent. However, Spouses Mesina were adjudged buyers in good faith
and thus were entitled to the possession of the subject property.
8. Meer filed a MFR against said decision but was denied.
9. Upon appeal to the RTC, RTC reversed the ruling of the MeTC ruling that the
Spouses Mesina were not purchasers in good faith.
10. Upon appeal, CA affirmed RTCs decision
11. After the reglementary period for appeal has lapsed, Spouses Mesina filed a
petition for Relief From Judgment and set aside CAs decision for the
following reasons:
a. Extrinsic Fraud was committed which prevented petitioners from
presenting his case
o There was collusion between Spouses Bunquin and Meer.
b. Mistake and Excusable Negligence has prevented the petitioner from
taking appeal within the reglementary period
o Their failure to file the appeal on time was largely due to the delay of
counsel of record to produce the requested documents of the case.
c. Petitioner has food and substantial defense in his action.
12. CA denied the petition on the ff grounds:
a. The first ground raised by petitioner should have been filed before the
court of origin, the MeTC, pursuant to Rule 38, Section 1.
o Where a judgment or final order is entered or any proceeding is
thereafter taken against a party in any court through FAME, he may
file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
b. For the second ground, Spouses Mesina did not mention alleged fraud
when the case was on appeal before the RTC. They cannot now challenge
the decision of this Court for the fraud allegedly perpetrated in the court
of origin.
c. The remedy of a petition for relief from judgment cannot be availed of
from a judgment of the CA in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
 13. Petitioners filed a MFR which was denied.
14. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N relief under Rule 38 is available to petitioners.

HELD: NO.
1. Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under
exceptional circumstances and only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence is present. Where the defendant has other available or adequate remedy
such as a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse decision, he cannot avail
himself of this remedy.
o The petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the
petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding to
be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the
facts constituting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action
or defense, as the case may be.
2. Most importantly, it should be filed with the same court which rendered the
decision
o Under Rule 38, the phrase any court refers to Municipal/Metroplitan
and RTC.
o The procedure in the CA and SC are governed by separate provisions
of the rules of Court and may, from time to time be supplemented by
additional rules promulgated by the SC through resolutions and
circulars.
o Neither the ROC nor the Revised Internal Rules of the CA allowed the
remedy of petition for relief in the CA.
o While in some cases, the SC relaxed the strict application of rules in
the interest of substantial justice and the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction, the present case does not fall in the exceptions.
3. In the case at bar, the extrinsic fraud must be brought to the MeTC. If they truly
believed that the default of the Spouses Bunquin prejudiced their rights, they should
have questioned this from the beginning. Their efforts in participating in the trial
were rewarded as the MeTC ruled in their favor. Also, when they appealed the case
with the RTC they did not raised such issue. The SC will not allow the petitioners, in
guise of equity, to benefit from their own negligence.
4. It is a settled rule that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be
relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was
due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure; otherwise, the petition
for relief will be tantamount t oreviving the right of appeal which has already been
lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to mistaken mode of procedure
by counsel.
o Petitioners, however, place the blame on their counsel and invoke honest
mistake of
law. They contend that they lack legal education, hence, were not aware of the
required period for filing an appeal. In exceptional cases, when the mistake of
counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, this Court affords a party
a second opportunity to vindicate his right. But this opportunity is unavailing in the
instant case, especially since petitioners have squandered the various opportunities
available to them at the different stages of this case. Public interest demands an end
to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has already attained
finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice.