4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [71] Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 203298, January 17, 2018, citing Spouse Belen v. Judge Chavez, 673 Phil. 58, 67 (2008). [72] Id. [73] Id. [74] Yuk Ling Ong v. Co, 755 Phil. 158, 165, citing Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas, Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., et al., 725 Phil. 19 (2014). [75] 809 Phil. 236 (2017). [76] 787 Phil. 441 (2016). [77] Supra note 75, citing id. at 450. [78] Id. [79] 292 Phil. 692 (1993). [80] Id. at 712. [81] Id., citing Zaide v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 68152, April 25, 1990, 184 SCRA 531. [82] 535 Phil 766 (2006), as cited in Hon. Buenaflor v. Ramirez, 805 Phil. 853, 868 (2017). [83] Id. at 775, citing Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119193, March 29, 1996, 255 SCRA 672. [84] SEC. 2. Grounds for annulment. -- The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. (n) [85] SEC. 3. Period of filing action. – If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (n) [86] Sps. Paderanga v. Sps. Bogabong, et al., 764 Phil. 290 (2015). Source: Supreme Court E-Library This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 15/16