Movido v. Spouses Pascual
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 2012. The case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner, Marginito A. Movido, challenging the denial of his Petition by the Court of Appeals. The legal issue in this case is whether the petitioner was deprived of due process due to the respondents' fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of due process because the fraud alleged was not extrinsic and did not prevent him from presenting his evidence during trial. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and the 11 October 2010 and 17 February 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed with finality.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 195713. January 18, 2012.]
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 January 2012which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 195713 (Marginito A. Movido v. Spouses Joselito and Luzminia Pascual, and The Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite). — For the Court's consideration is a Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 November 2011 filed by petitioner Marginito A. Movido (Movido), moving for the reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated 28 September 2011. This Resolution denied his Petition on the following grounds: (a) absence of a verified statement of the material date of filing of the Motion for Reconsideration, and (b) failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. IESTcD
In this instant Motion for Reconsideration, Movido correctly points out that his Petition contained a statement of the date on which he received the assailed 17 February 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which denied his Motion for Reconsideration. Despite this compliance with technical rules, the present Motion for Reconsideration should nevertheless be denied for failure to raise any new substantive issue to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary power of review.
Petitioner Movido insists that he was deprived of due process because of respondents' fraud and misrepresentation. This contention cannot be sustained because actions for the annulment of judgment will only prosper if the fraud alleged is extrinsic. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his or her entire case to the court, or where the fraud operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured. [Tolentino vs. Leviste, 485 Phil. 661, 671 (2004)]
In the case at bar, even if it were true that respondents suppressed a document captioned Bilihang Di-Lubos ng Bahay at Lupa dated 22 November 1999, petitioner was not precluded from presenting his evidence during trial, as he was given time and opportunity to argue his case and was even allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The 11 October 2010 and 17 February 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be allowed. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., additional member vice Brion, J., per Special Order No. 1174 dated 9 January 2012).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU