This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| During the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-91-10071, however, Sarte was able to transfer ownership of Lot 1-A covered by TCT No. 108070 to respondent because there was no notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of the title. TCT No. 108070 was thus correspondingly cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 122944, issued in the name of respondent. Significantly, it was only on TCT No. 122944 that the Affidavit of Adverse Claim (Entry No. 7159/T-No. 122944) and the Notice of Lis Pendens (Entry No. 1367/T-No. 122944)[7] were annotated. Incidentally, the complaint for Annulment of Deed of Assignment, Deed of Absolute Sale, Real Estate Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT Nos. 122944 and 126639 and Damages docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-23940 subject of Entry No. 1367 was dismissed on 23 October 1995 in view of the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-91-10071.[8] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In a petition for annulment of judgment, the judgment may be annulled on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[26] Fraud is 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.[27] 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.[28] On the other hand, lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim, and in either case the judgment or final order and resolution are void.[29] Where the questioned judgment is annulled, either on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, the same shall be set aside and considered void.[30] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is basic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[16] In the present case, respondents and their co-heirs are adversely affected by the judgment rendered by the trial court considering their ostensible ownership of the property. It will be the height of inequity to declare herein petitioners as owners of the disputed lot without giving respondents the opportunity to present any evidence in support of their claim that the subject property still forms part of the estate of their deceased predecessor and is the subject of a pending action for partition among the compulsory heirs. Much more, it is tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.[17] | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Jurisprudence and Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) provide that judgments may be annulled only on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. [9] | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| En passant, one need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is that it can prove his allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and it would be adversely affected thereby.[29] Even where there was no fraud and collusion, however, this Court has allowed parties to file petitions for annulment of judgment to question precisely their non-inclusion as parties to the original case.[30] E.g., in National Housing Authority v. Evangelista[31] where this Court upheld the annulment of the trial court judgment, at the instance of a person who was not impleaded in the original case, this Court held:Petitioner argues that it should not bear the consequence of the trial court's denial of its motion to include respondent as defendant in Civil Case No. Q-91-10071. True, it was not petitioner's fault that respondent was not made a party to the case. But likewise, it was not respondent's fault that he was not given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Whatever prompted the trial court to deny petitioner's motion to include respondent as defendant is not for the Court to reason why. xxx Be that as it may, the undeniable fact remains respondent is not a party to Civil Case No. Q-91-10071 and xxx any portion of the trial court 's judgment xxx cannot be binding on him.[32] | |||||