Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 153 views

    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation V CA, Et - Al

    Uploaded by

    Teoti Navarro Reyes
    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation purchased land from the Goc-ong family, but later discovered the land was mortgaged to the Ng family. The Ng family filed a foreclosure case against the Goc-ongs and won. Dare Adventure then filed a petition to annul the decision, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a petition for annulment was not the proper recourse and that Dare Adventure should have filed an action to quiet title or reconveyance instead. The Court also discussed the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation V CA, Et - Al

    Uploaded by

    Teoti Navarro Reyes
    153 views2 pages
    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation purchased land from the Goc-ong family, but later discovered the land was mortgaged to the Ng family. The Ng family filed a foreclosure case against the Goc-ongs and won. Dare Adventure then filed a petition to annul the decision, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a petition for annulment was not the proper recourse and that Dare Adventure should have filed an action to quiet title or reconveyance instead. The Court also discussed the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.

    Original Description:

    nmn

    Original Title

    (115) Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v CA, Et.al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation purchased land from the Goc-ong family, but later discovered the land was mortgaged to the Ng family. The Ng family filed a foreclosure case against the Goc-ongs and won. Dare Adventure then filed a petition to annul the decision, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a petition for annulment was not the proper recourse and that Dare Adventure should have filed an action to quiet title or reconveyance instead. The Court also discussed the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    153 views2 pages

    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation V CA, Et - Al

    Uploaded by

    Teoti Navarro Reyes
    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation purchased land from the Goc-ong family, but later discovered the land was mortgaged to the Ng family. The Ng family filed a foreclosure case against the Goc-ongs and won. Dare Adventure then filed a petition to annul the decision, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a petition for annulment was not the proper recourse and that Dare Adventure should have filed an action to quiet title or reconveyance instead. The Court also discussed the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION v. HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS,
    MANILA, et.al.
    G.R. No. 161122 : September 24, 2012

    FACTS:

    Dare Adventure Farm Corporation (Dare Adventure) purchased a parcel of land located in
    Cebu from respondent Agripina Goc-ong (Agripina), Porferio Goc-ong, Diosdado Goc-
    ong, Crisostomo Goc-ong, Tranquilino Goc-ong, Naciancena Goc-ong and Avelino Goc-
    ong (collectively, the Goc-ongs). This was evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale.Later-
    on, Dare Adventure discovered that the subject property was used as a security for Goc-
    ongs obligation by mortgaging it to Felix Ng, married to Nenita N. Ng, and Martin T. Ng,
    married to Azucena S. Ng (collectively, the Ngs). Subsequently, the Goc-ongs apparently
    failing to pay their obligation, the Ngs filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money or,
    in the alternative, for the foreclosure of mortgage only against Agripina. The RTC
    rendered its decision in favor of the Ngs.Thereafter, Dare Adventure commenced in the
    CA an action for the annulment of the RTCs decision. The CA dismissed the petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the action for annulment of judgment was a proper recourse for Dare
    Adventure to set aside the decision of the RTC.

    HELD:

    The petition is denied.

    REMEDIAL LAW: petition for annulment of judgment; doctrine of immutability of final


    judgments

    A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it


    may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final
    order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking
    jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is
    not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final
    judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the
    grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing
    in Section 110 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the
    ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
    are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

    The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment, final order or
    final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards the time-honored doctrine of
    immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid corner stone in the

    1BATARA, Kylemil
    dispensation of justice by the courts.The doctrine of immutability and unalterability
    serves a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and
    thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an
    end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why the
    courts exist.

    We agree with the CAs suggestion that the petitioners proper recourse was either an
    action for quieting of title or an action for reconveyance of the property.

    The Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

    2BATARA, Kylemil

    You might also like