Maura So vs Obliosca Digest

HEIRS OF MAURA SO VS OBLIOSCA, G.R. NO. 147082, JAN. 28, 2008 (Lack o J!"#$%#c&#o' $. E)*"c#$* o  J!"#$%#c&#o'+ SAEMEN OF HE CASE Petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA denying the motion for reconsideration of said decision.  The assailed assailed decision declared declared that that a petition for for annulment annulment of judgment judgment cannot be availed availed of when when the petitioner petitioner had already led an appeal under Rule ! of the Rules of Court. SAEMEN OF HE FACS Pantaleaon "omoc was the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT and located at Cogon District# Cagayan de $ro. %hen he died the property was inherited by his heirs. &n 'eb. ()*)# the "omoc heirs e+ecuted a Deed of ,+tradjudicial -ettlement with Absolute sale of registered land in favour of petitioner aura -o# over the property for P/00#000.00# but the three respondents and aura -o failed to a1+ their signature on the document and it was not notari2ed. The petitioner demanded the e+ecution of a nal deed of conveyance but the "omoc heirs ignored the demand. $n 'eb. 3# ()4/# petitioner led a Complaint for specic performance against the "omoc heirs to compel them to e+ecute and deliver the proper registerable deed of sale over the lot. $n 'eb. 34# ()4/# the "omoc hiers e+ecuted e+ecuted again a Deed of ,+trajudicial -ettlement with Absolute -ale of Registered 5and in favour of the spouses 5im 5iong 6ang and 5im Pue 6ing for P300#000.00. $n 'eb. 'eb. (3# ()44# the trial court decided the case in favour of the petitioner. $n appeal the CA a1rmed the decision with the modication that the award of damages# atty7s fees and e+penses of litigation was deleted. The defendants heirs and the spouses 5im led separate petitions for review with the -C which were later consolidated. $n Aug. 3# ())(# the Court rendered a Decision in these consolidated cases upholding petitioners better right over the property. $n 'eb. (0# ())3# petitioner led a motion for e+ecution of the said decision. The respondents opposed the motion on the ground that they did not participate in the e+ecution of the Deed of ,+trajudicial8 and they were not parties to the case. The trial court granted the motion for e+ecution. R was led but was also li9ewise denied. $n "uly 33# ())3# the trial court issued an $rder granting the motion for e+ecution and divesting all the "omoc hairs of their titles over the property. All the "omoc hairs led a petition for certiorari with the CA# assailing the said order of the RTC# RTC# but was dismissed. The resolution became nal and e+ecutory. &t appears that# on ar. ar. (3# ())3# respondents respondents also led a complaint for legal redemption against petitioner with the RTC of isamis $riental 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. &n a resolution resolution dated "ul. (# ())# the RTC RTC granted petitioners motion for reconsideration. $n ;ov. ;ov. (# ())# acting jointly on petitioners R and respondents Compliance<otion for the &ssuance of a %rit of ,+ecution# the RTC rendered a resolution denying the R. $n Dec. 34# ())# later substituted by her heirs# petitioner led with the CA a petition for annulment of  judgment# which which reinstated reinstated the RTCs RTCs resolutions resolutions.. This was denied denied by the CA. CA. The petitioners led this petition for review. review. SAEMEN OF HE ISSUE-S %hether or not the honourable CA committed a reversible error in not holding that the Trial Court acted without  jurisdiction  jurisdiction because the honourable honourable -C had previou previously sly ruled that that the lot in =uestion =uestion had been been sold twice twice by all the hairs of Pantaleon to aura -o and later to the 5im spouses and said nal decisions and resolution cannot be revised and reversed by said trial court. RULING OF HE SUREME COUR

Petitioners argue that the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it rendered the Resolution which recogni2ed respondents right to redeem the property because this# in e>ect# amended the Decision of the -upreme Court in the previous two cases which sustained the sale of the property to aura -o. Petitioners clearly confused lac9 of jurisdiction with error in the e+ercise of jurisdiction. "urisdiction is not the same as the e+ercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the e+ercise of jurisdiction# jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case# and not the decision rendered therein. %here there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter# the decision on all other =uestions arising in the case is but an e+ercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the e+ercise 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 e+ercise of its jurisdiction# not its lac9 of authority to decide the case. &n a petition for annulment of judgment based on lac9 of jurisdiction# petitioners must shown not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lac9 of authority to hear and decide the case. $n 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 nality of the decision of the -C@