This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-01-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.[28] If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.[29] The remedy is by no means an appeal whereby the correctness of the assailed judgment or final order is in issue; hence, the CA is not called upon to address each error allegedly committed by the trial court.[30] | |||||
|
2006-12-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED."[12] Uniwide filed a motion for reconsideration of the 17 April 1995 decision which was denied by the CIAC in its Resolution dated 6 July 1995. Uniwide accordingly filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals,[13] which rendered the assailed decision on 21 February 1996. Uniwide's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolution[14] dated 30 September 1996. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we must emphasize that the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court.[25] The issue of whether before us is a case of double sale is outside the scope of the present petition for review. The appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to determine extrinsic fraud. To determine which sale was valid, review of evidence is necessary. This we cannot do in this petition. An action for annulment of judgment is independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered[26] and is not an appeal of the judgment therein.[27] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we must emphasize that the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not involve the merits of the final order of the trial court.[25] The issue of whether before us is a case of double sale is outside the scope of the present petition for review. The appellate court only allowed the reception of extraneous evidence to determine extrinsic fraud. To determine which sale was valid, review of evidence is necessary. This we cannot do in this petition. An action for annulment of judgment is independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered[26] and is not an appeal of the judgment therein.[27] | |||||