Practice question
In an incidental challenge, a litigant alleges a personal circumstance supposedly changing the prior judgment but supplies no competent proof and identifies no facial jurisdictional nullity. He demands the judgment be ignored as nonexistent. Which Atup requirement remains unmet?
- A demonstrated basis for treating the judgment as utterly void, rather than an unproved factual assertion
- Every unsupported allegation automatically nullifies judgment
- A new affidavit label is always conclusive
- The earlier court must be presumed powerless
- Finality itself proves lack of jurisdiction
Legal references
- Atup v People GR229395/252705 November10,2021 MAIN nullity and clerical correction: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_229395_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.