4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly true, i.e., that respondents committed extrinsic fraud by providing the court an erroneous address where summons may be served on petitioner, this would have made the RTC Decision dated July 21, 2016 void for lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner, and thus, may be assailed anytime. Clearly, the propriety of filing the petition for relief in this case and its timeliness are necessarily intertwined with the merits of petitioner's petition for certiorari which involve questions of fact and law. Since Rule 45 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that only questions of law shall be entertained in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court deems it proper to remand the case to the CA for determination of the merits of petitioner's petition for certiorari.[86] WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolutions dated July 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151644 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for a determination of the merits of the petition for certiorari. SO ORDERED. Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur. [*] Sionson in some parts of the rollo. [1] Rollo, pp. 26-57. [2] Id. at 98-100; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring. [3] Id. at 15-16. [4] Id. at 232-239; penned by Judge Bernelito R. Fernandez. [5] Id. at 419-425. [6] Emerflor B. Mangisay, Jr. in some parts or the rollo. [7] Rollo, p. 420. [8] Id. at 421-422. [9] Id. at 129-135. [10] Id. at 134-135. [11] Id. at 133. [12] Id. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 11/16