Practice question
In another proceeding where a prior judgment’s validity matters, a party establishes a jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of that judgment, making it utterly void under the applicable doctrine. The opponent says only ordinary factual error and nullity exist as identical concepts, so neither can ever be considered incidentally. Which is best?
- True voidness and ordinary error are identical
- No judgment can ever be void
- Any allegation automatically authorizes all collateral relief
- The court must distinguish genuine nullity from ordinary error and assess the permitted collateral challenge under the applicable doctrine
- Every collateral claim automatically succeeds without proof
Legal references
- G.R.229395, November10 2021, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_229395_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.