This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Lack of jurisdiction under this rule means lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the parties.[53] Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is "[that which] prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or [that which] operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured."[54] | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Arcelona et al. v. Court of Appeals[62] and Bulawan v. Aquende,[63] and Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Alejo et al.[64] the Court ruled that the burden to implead or order the impleading of an indispensable party rests on the plaintiff and on the trial court, respectively. Thus, the non-inclusion of the indispensable parties, despite notice of this infirmity, resulted in the annulment of these cases. | |||||
|
2013-03-04 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petition filed with the CA contained the following allegations, among others: (1) "the auction sale of the land is null and void for lack of actual and personal notice to herein petitioner"; (2) the RTC did not comply with the procedure prescribed in Section 71, Presidential Decree No. 1529 requiring notice by the Register of Deeds to the registered owner as to the issuance of a certificate of sale; and (3) petitioner was not afforded due process when she was not notified of the proceedings instituted by respondent for the cancellation of her title.[10] The petition need not categorically state the exact words extrinsic fraud; rather, the allegations in the petition should be so crafted to easily point out the ground on which it was based. The allegations in the petition filed with the CA sufficiently identify the ground upon which the petition was based extrinsic fraud. 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. 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.[11] The allegations clearly charged the RTC and respondent with depriving petitioner of the opportunity to oppose the auction sale and the cancellation of her title and ventilate her side. This allegation, if true, constitutes extrinsic fraud. | |||||