TOLENTINO v LEVISTE/SPS. CINCO Facts: Respondents Cinco filed a complaint for specific performance + damages v. petitioners Tempus/Tolentino.

(RTC Quezon City) o Allegation: Respondents purchased a condo unit in Diliman, but in spite of the deed of sale and CTC, they were unable to actually possess the unit as Tempus allegedly leased it to a third party. o Added: Failed to pay capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax; failed to execute necessary board resolution. Because of this, could not register deed themselves. Respondents pray: entitled to rental value and damages + af. Petitioners failed to reply to complaint. Judge Leviste declared them in default; resolve based on respondents evidence. Leviste granted the reliefs prayed for. Petitioners then filed motion for new trial on the ground that their right to fair and impartial trial had been impaired by reason of accident, mistake, or negligence of their former counsel (Atty. Villamor). (DENIED) Later, petitioners, through their new counsel (Atty. Santos), filed a notice of appeal, but were dismissed for failure to submit the required brief. The decision later became final and executory. 2000: filed for annulment of RTC judgment in CA (lack of jurisdiction was among basis). o CA modified TC decision: Merely lowered amount of damages. Annulment of judgment may be grounded on basis of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, and previous remedies must have failed. These were absent (fraud: no proof; jurisdiction: SP+D was within RTC jurisdiction).

Issues: Whether or not RTC had jurisdiction. Held/Ratio: YES. Rule 47 gives two grounds for annulment of judgment: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. o Extrinsic fraud any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial, resulting in inability to exhibit fully ones case. No evidence. Negligence of lawyer = negligence of party. The party should have taken steps to follow up the developments of the suit. Nothing shows that the negligence led to complete deprivation of the right to appear. Further, Sec. 2 provides that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid basis for annulment if it could be availed of in a different remedial measure. Hence, their motion for new trial barred them from alleging extrinsic fraud on annulment.

Jurisdiction very specific with respect to annulment of judgment. Here, it refers to lack of jurisdiction over the person or over the claim. Over the person: Plaintiff- filing of complaint Defendant- summons, voluntary appearance, voluntary submission Over the subject matter: Conferred by law Their errors referred to exercise of jurisdiction, not a lack thereof.

SIENA REALTY v. GAL-LANG Facts: Petitioner lost in a case in the CA. They filed a petition for review under certiorari, claiming that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolution.

Issues: Whether or not petition for review for certiorari was the proper remedy. Held/Ratio: NO. Grave abuse of discretion would refer to certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 45 certiorari involves questions of law. Even then, they would still lose over a different technicality. o The petition was filed >60 days from receipt of the order denying the MR of the dismissal of their complaint. Order: March 23 Received: April 8, must file on May 29 Filed: June 7, 9 days late.