This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, this Court has laid down a stiff requirement to collaterally overthrow a judgment. In the case of Reyes, et al. v. Datu,[59] We ruled that it is not enough for the party seeking the nullity to show a mistaken or erroneous decision; he must show to the court that the judgment complained of is utterly void.[60] In short, the judgment must be void upon its face.[61] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The recourse is equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases, as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Annulment of judgments is a remedy long authorized and sanctioned in our jurisdiction.[38] As far back as 1918, this Court in Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca[39] recognized the availability of a direct attack of a final judgment on the ground that it is void for want of jurisdiction. In Reyes v. Datu[40] we held that the validity of a final judgment or order of the court may be attacked only by a direct action or proceeding or by motion in another case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. | |||||