Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSENDO ALBA v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182314 2013-11-12	VIRGINIA Y. GOCHAN v. CHARLES MANCAO BERSAMIN, J.
Assuming arguendo that respondent has the personality to be impleaded in Civil Case No. CEB-22825 since it is settled that a person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled,[37] still, he failed to prove with sufficient particularity the allegation that petitioners practiced deceit or employed subterfuge that precluded him to fully and completely present his case to the trial court. Like in other civil cases, the allegation of extrinsic fraud must be fully substantiated by a preponderance of evidence in order to serve as basis for annulling a judgment.[38] Extrinsic fraud has to be definitively established by the claimant as mere allegation does not instantly warrant the annulment of a final judgment.[39] Ei incumbit probotio qui dicit, non qui negat. He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[40] Unfortunately, respondent failed to discharge the burden.
	GR No. 190710 2011-06-06	JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS NACHURA, J.
An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action in rem. [22]
	GR No. 187023 2010-11-17	EVANGELINE D. IMANI v. METROPOLITAN BANK NACHURA, J.
The basic rule of evidence is that unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify on their affidavits, such affidavits must be rejected for being hearsay. Stated differently, the declarants of written statements pertaining to disputed facts must be presented at the trial for cross-examination. [37]
	GR No. 166734 2009-07-03	MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA PERALTA, J.
In Alba v. Court of Appeals[51] and Linzag v. Court of Appeals,[52] it was held that a party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals in a petition filed with it for annulment of judgment, final order or resolution is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but rather an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. A petition for certiorari is, like a petition for annulment, a remedy of last resort and must be availed of only when an appeal or any other adequate, plain or speedy remedy may no longer be pursued in the ordinary course of law.[53] A remedy is said to be plain, speedy and adequate when it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[54]
	GR No. 177598 2008-10-16	ROBERT SAN PEDRO v. WILLY ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Alba v. Court of Appeals, [30] the Court further elucidated that:In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 161220 2008-07-30	BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character.[27] Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.[28] Fraud is regarded as 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. 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. [29]
	GR NO. 161417 2007-02-08	MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO v. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK TINGA, J.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.[15]
	GR NO. 153144 2006-10-16	VMC RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, we perceive a patent error in the mode of appeal elected by petitioner for the purpose of assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.[19] Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefore is grave abuse of discretion.[20] In the case at bar, the proper remedy of petitioner VRESCO to dispute the Decision of the appellate court is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which should be instituted within 15 days from receipt of the assailed decision or resolution.[21] In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently emphasized that after the lapse of the 15-day period to file a petition for Review on Certiorari, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not, and cannot be, a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.[22] In the case at bar, the petition was filed 45 days after receipt of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying its Motion for Reconsideration, evidently beyond the 15-day period for filing a petition for review on certiorari, hence the period to appeal was lost. Therefore, the instant petition cannot prevail since a petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, specially if one's error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.[23]
	GR NO. 144273 2005-10-20	RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
These, however, do no constitute extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.[10] Fraud is regarded as 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. 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.[11]