This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In a petition for annulment of judgment, the judgment may be annulled on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[26] Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured.[27] The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[28] On the other hand, lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either case the judgment or final order and resolution are void.[29] Where the questioned judgment is annulled, either on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, the same shall be set aside and considered void.[30] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The ordinary remedies of a motion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment are remedies available onlytopartiesintheproceedingswherethe assailed judgment is rendered. In fact, it has been held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot make use of a petition for relief from judgment.[52] Indubitably, Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar cannot avail themselves of the aforesaid ordinary remedies of motion for new trial, petition for relief from judgment, or appeal, because they were not parties to the proceedings in Civil Case No. 96-4193 in which the RTC Decision dated 11 January 2001 sought to be annulled was rendered. Nordec Phils. and Dr. Malvar also cannot seek the annulment of the 11 January 2001 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-4193. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is settled that a person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled.[16] What is essential is that he can prove his allegation that the judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby,[17] because if fully substantiated by preponderance of evidence, those allegations could be the basis for annulment of the assailed judgment. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is settled that a person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled.[16] What is essential is that he can prove his allegation that the judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby,[17] because if fully substantiated by preponderance of evidence, those allegations could be the basis for annulment of the assailed judgment. | |||||