20Hence, the instant petition.As we stated, the petitioner assails these twinresolutions on grounds of improper procedure.Specifically,he assigns the following errors:I.THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSE [sic] ITSDISCRETION IN NOT DISMISSING AC G.R. NO. 07860 ONTHE GROUND THAT IT IS IN REALITY A PETITION FORCERTIORARI FILED OUT OF TIME AND SHOULD NOT BEGIVEN DUE COURSE.II.THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSE [sic] ITSDISCRETION IN NOT DISMISSING AC G.R. NO. 07860 ONTHE GROUND OF RES JUDICATA.III.THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSE [sic] ITSDISCRETION IN NOT CONSIDERING AC G. R. 07860 ASMOOT AND ACADEMIC SINCE PETITIONER HAD DISPOSEDOF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LONG BEFORE THE FILINGOF THIS SUIT.IV.THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITSDISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TODISMISS SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARGUMENTRAISED THEREIN ARE BUT REHASH OF THE ARGUMENTSIN HIS COMMENT TO THE PETITION.21
Subscribe to view the full document.
2/20/2019SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 16412/24_______________20The resolution was penned by Justice Jorge Imperial, with whomJustices Vicente Mendoza and Manuel Herrera concurred.The petitionwas apparently re-raffled to the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals.See rollo, id.,152-153.21Id., 17-18.170170SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCanlas vs. Court of AppealsThe petitioner argues that the petition pending with therespondent court “is actually a petition for certiorari,”22disguised as a pleading for annulment of judgment andthat in such a case, it faces alleged legal impediments (1) Ithad been filed out of time, allegedly two years from theissuance of the assailed orders, and (2) It was not precededby a motion for reconsideration. He adds that assumingannulment of judgment were proper, no judgment allegedlyexists for annul-ment, the aforesaid two orders being in thenature of interlocu-tory issuances.On purely technical grounds, the petitioner’s argumentsare impressive. Annulment of judgment, we have hadoccasion to rule, rests on a single ground: extrinsic fraud.What “extrinsic fraud” means is explained in Macabingkilv. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation:23. . .It is only extrinsicor collateralfraud, as distinguished fromintrinsic fraud, however, that can serve as a basis for theannulment of judgment. Fraud has been regarded as extrinsic orcollateral, within the meaning of the rule, “where it is one theeffect of which prevents a party from having a trial, or realcontest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where itoperates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, butof the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fairsubmission of the contro-versy.” In other words, extrinsic fraudrefers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in thelitigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case,whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibitingfully his side of the case, by fraud or deception practiced on himby his opponent.
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court
As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.
Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern
I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.
University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern
The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.