Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JACINTO GALANG v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 142628 2007-02-06	SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This brings to fore the issue of whether the petition for annulment of the DARAB judgment could be brought to the CA. As previously noted, Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested in the CA the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not expressly give the CA the power to annul judgments of quasi-judicial bodies. Thus, in Elcee Farms, Inc. v. Semillano,[30] the Court affirmed the ruling of the CA that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a final and executory judgment of the NLRC, citing Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, which only vests in the CA "exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts." This was reiterated in Galang v. Court of Appeals,[31] where the Court ruled that that the CA is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of judgment of a final decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA 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]
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA 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]