Legal
Case Title(s) and question/problem/issue
Why is this a problem?
Citation presented by the
case(s)
HEIRS OF PAEL Was the acquisition of In 1983, PFINA Mining and Exploration,
v. CA PFINA of the disputed Inc. was a mining company. It changed its
properties within its corporate name to PFINA Properties, Inc.,
371 S 587 power and a valid only on January 22, 1998, six (6) days
corporate act? before filing its petition-in-intervention
with the Court of Appeals. PFINA claims
that it acquired the disputed properties
from the Heirs of Pael by virtue of a deed
of assignment dated January 25, 1983.
Private respondents opposed the motion;
they cite the fact that before PFINA filed
its motion for intervention, or for a long
period of fifteen (15) years, PFINA and
the Heirs of Pael were totally silent about
the alleged deed of assignment. Either of
them took no steps to register the deed or
secure a transfer certificate of title,
evidencing the change of ownership
during this long period of time.
Legal Provisions/Legal
Conclusion
principle or Rule Involved
There is extrinsic fraud No. The acquisition of PFINA of the
within the meaning of Sec. disputed properties is not within its power
9 par. (2), of B.P. 819. Blg, and not a valid corporate act. At the time
where it is one the effect of PFINA acquired the disputed properties in
which prevents a party from 1983, its corporate name was PFINA Mining
hearing a trial, or real and Exploration, Inc., a mining company
contest, or from presenting which had no valid grounds to engage in the
all of his case to the court, highly speculative business of urban real
or where it operates upon estate development.
matters, not pertaining to
the judgment itself, but to
the manner in which it was
procured so that there is not
a fair submission of the
controversy. In other words,
extrinsic fraud refers to any
fraudulent act of the
prevailing party in the
litigation which is
committed outside of the
trial of the case, whereby
the defeated party has been
prevented from exhibiting
fully his side of the case by
fraud or deception practiced
on him by his opponent.