Sterling Investment Corp. vs. Ruiz 30 SCRA 318, October 31, 1969 J.

Fernando Facts: The subject matter of the controversy is a parcel of land originally owned by one Teodorico Cabasbas, who obtained a homestead patent thereon on 194 ! The deceased was the father of herein private respondent "lejandro Cabasbas! #n February 1$, 19%$, respondent "lejandro Cabasbas filed with the CF&'(i)al *+ranch ,&-, doc.eted therein as Civil Case /o! 4$0 , a complaint against various claimants, including spouses (eyes and 1e 2esus, to recover the subject land! #n 3ay 4, 19%$, pursuant to a compromise agreement entered into by the parties, the trial judge rendered a decision declaring spouses (eyes and 1e 2esus as registered owners of the western portion of the property! "pparently, by virtue of a series of transfers, petitioner corporations ac5uired ownership of the above'mentioned property on 1960! #n #ctober 74, 196$, respondent "lejandro Cabasbas filed his second complaint, Civil Case /o! 1 6 4, praying that the decision in the previous Civil Case /o! 4$0 be declared null and void with the allegation that it was obtained through fraud as it was made to appear before the CF& that the conveyance of title was made on 1946 when in fact it too. place on 1944, in violation of the 8omestead 9aw! :etitioner that they were action against dismiss the suit corporations specifically denied the allegations and asserted innocent purchasers for value thus negating any cause of them! They stressed that respondent trial judge should on the grounds of lac. of jurisdiction, among others!

:etitioner corporations failed to move the trial court! 8ence, the matter was brought to the ;upreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus! &ssues: Can a previous judgment of a branch be annulled by another branch of the CF&< can it be invalidated in another proceeding! (ulings: The jurisdiction to annul a judgment of a branch of the CF& belongs solely to the very same branch which rendered the judgment! "ny other branch, even if it be in the same judicial district, that attempts to do so either e=ceeds its jurisdiction or acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac. of jurisdiction! Certiorari and prohibition will prosper to prevent the attempting branch

of the court from proceeding to nullify a final decision rendered by a co'e5ual and coordinate branch! Fraud to be ground for nullity of a judgment must be e=trinsic to the litigation! >ere not this the rule there would be no end to litigations, perjury being of such common occurrence in trials! &n fact, under the opposite rule, the losing party could attac. the judgment at any time by attributing imaginary falsehood to his adversary?s proofs! +ut the settled law is that judicial determination however erroneous of matters brought within the court?s jurisdiction cannot be invalidated in another proceeding! &t is the business of a party to meet and repel his opponent?s perjured evidence! >rits granted!