This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While the CA Petition does not need to state categorically the exact words "extrinsic fraud" or "lack of jurisdiction" as grounds for the annulment of judgment, still, it is necessary that the allegations should be so crafted to establish the ground on which the petition is based.[38] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Castigador v. Nicolas,[32] we had the occasion to state that: 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. 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. 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. | |||||
|
2013-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case, and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case.[25] In contrast, extrinsic or collateral fraud is a trickery practiced by the prevailing party upon the unsuccessful party, which prevents the latter from fully proving his case; it affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which said judgment is obtained.[26] Fraud is regarded as 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."[27] | |||||