Magno v.

Court of Appeals
24 SCRA 819; 10 September 1981
Petition for Review on Certiorari
J. Melencio Herrera
Topic: Rule 37 Sec. 1—Extrinsic Fraud

Facts:
 Petitioners Francisco Magno et al filed a petition for partition of war payments
from the US Government against private respondent Donato Vergara and
Melliton Magno.
 The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan ruled in favor of petitioners. A writ of
execution was issued and properties of private respondents were levied.
 Private respondents filed an action for annulment of judgement and writ of
execution with the CFI of Nueva Ecija on the ground that the judgement procured
in the Bulacan Civil Case was procured through extrinsic fraud.
 Francisco Magno alleged committed extrinsic fraud by convincing private
respondent during their confrontation that it was never his intention to include
them in the said suit and that this was only a tactic advised by lawyers and upon
the assurance that they would later on be excluded therefrom.
 Petitioners moved to dismiss the petition in Nueva Ecija CFI on the basis of lack of
jurisdiction given that it has coordinate and concurrent jurisdiction with Bulacan
CFI.
 CFI and upon appeal, CA ruled in favor of private respondents.

Issue: Whether extrinsic fraud was committed?

Held: Yes. Petition denied.

Reason:
 Extrinsic fraud is one which prevents the losing party from defending the
action brought against him.
 Among the instances given in the books of extrinsic or collateral fraud are
such as these: Keeping the unsuccessful party away from court by a false
promise of compromise.
 The authority of a Court of First Instance to take cognizance of a suit to
annul a final and executory Decision rendered by another Court of First
Instance is beyond doubt. This was the doctrine enunciated in Dulap et al.
vs. Court of Appeals, et al. wherein it was held that since the cause of
action in an annulment suit is entirely different from the action which gave
rise to the judgment sought to be annulled, a direct attack against it being
the main object of such proceeding, there is no plausible reason, why the
venue of the action to annul the judgment should necessarily follow the
venue of the previous action.