This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be extrinsic or collateral.[41] The extrinsic or collateral fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be such that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and the losing party from having an adversarial trial of the issue. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully presenting his case to the court as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest.[42] Extrinsic fraud can be committed by a counsel against his client when the latter is prevented from presenting his case to the court.[43] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| "Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court,[32]or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy.[33]This is not present in the case at hand as respondent was not prevented from securing a fair trial and was given the opportunity to present her case. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| x x x The nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate Of Title of registered land is similar to that of a second Owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate Of Title. Both are issued, after the proper proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that the original of the said TCT or the original of the Owner's Duplicate TCT, respectively, was lost and could not be located or found despite diligent efforts exerted for that purpose. Both, therefore, are subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A cursory examination of these subsequent copies would show that they are not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies are put on notice of such fact and thus warned to be extra-careful. x x x.[60] | |||||
|
2005-08-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 1, Rule 38[14] ("Section 1"), the court may grant relief from judgment only "[w]hen a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence xxx." In their petition for relief from judgment in the trial court, petitioners contended that judgment was entered against them through "mistake or fraud" because they were allegedly under the impression that Atty. Ranot had prepared and filed "the necessary pleading." This is not the fraud or mistake contemplated under Section 1. As used in that provision, "mistake" refers to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case.[15] "Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court.[16] Clearly, petitioners' mistaken assumption that Atty. Ranot had attended to his professional duties is neither mistake nor fraud. | |||||