Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 205814 2016-02-15	SPS. ALFREDO TEAÑO* AND VERONICA TEAÑO v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Section 1,[33] Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that annulment of judgments or final orders, and resolutions covers civil actions of the RTCs where the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief and other remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy in equity that may be availed of when ordinary remedies are unavailable without fault on the part of the petitioner. As aptly explained by the Court in Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals:[34]
	GR No. 206147 2016-01-13	MICHAEL C. GUY v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT MENDOZA, J.
In relation to the rules of civil procedure, it is elementary that a judgment of a court is conclusive and binding only upon the parties and their successors-in-interest after the commencement of the action in court.[29] A decision rendered on a complaint in a civil action or proceeding does not bind or prejudice a person not impleaded therein, for no person shall be adversely affected by the outcome of a civil action or proceeding in which he is not a party.[30] The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he has not been made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.[31]
	GR No. 167838 2015-08-05	JOSE V. TOLEDO v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.[27] An action for reconveyance, on the other hand, is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.[28] The Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts[29] whereas actions for reconveyance of real property may be filed before the Regional Trial Courts or the Municipal Trial Courts, depending on the assessed value of the property involved.[30]
	GR No. 188801 2014-10-15	ROSARIO MATA CASTRO v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO LEONEN, J.
In Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals:[50]
	GR No. 159926 2014-01-20	PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK BERSAMIN, J.
The Court has expounded on the nature of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order in Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[27] viz: A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.
	GR No. 175542 & 183205 2013-06-05	GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling rendered in an action or proceeding in which he was not made a party conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.[34] In Muñoz v. Yabut, Jr.,[35] this Court ruled:An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.