Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGAYTAY v. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 182314 2013-11-12	VIRGINIA Y. GOCHAN v. CHARLES MANCAO BERSAMIN, J.
Similarly, City Government of Tagaytay v. Guerrero[23] distinguished: x x x [F]raud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. There is intrinsic fraud where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where the act 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, so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to the transaction sued upon.
	GR No. 176628 2012-03-19	PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY v. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT BRION, J.
"Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent."[9] Under the doctrine of this cited case, we do not see the acts of PTA's counsel to be constitutive of extrinsic fraud.
	GR No. 166838 2011-06-15	STA. LUCIA REALTY v. CITY OF PASIG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In City Government of Tagaytay v. Guerrero, [38] this Court reprimanded the City of Tagaytay for levying taxes on a property that was outside its territorial jurisdiction, viz: In this case, it is basic that before the City of Tagaytay may levy a certain property for sale due to tax delinquency, the subject property should be under its territorial jurisdiction. The city officials are expected to know such basic principle of law. The failure of the city officials of Tagaytay to verify if the property is within its jurisdiction before levying taxes on the same constitutes gross negligence. [39] (Emphasis ours.)
	GR No. 163530 2011-03-09	PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. RAMON VALENZUELA PERALTA, J.
While the abovequoted section, among other things, authorizes a person in interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title or of any memorandum appearing therein, the prevailing rule is that proceedings thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.[13] Relief under the said legal provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest.[14]