In Arangote v. Maglunob, 579 SCRA 620 (2009), the Supreme Court distinguished direct attack from collateral attack, to wit: the attack is considered direct when the object of an action is to annul or set aside such proceeding, or enjoin its enforcement. Conversely, an attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.
Example 1:
Leo Hera has been ordered to pay child's support in a divorce case, but then he files another lawsuit trying to prove a claim that he is not the father of the child. A "direct attack" would have been to raise the issue of parenthood in the divorce action.
The law wants judgments to be final whenever possible, and thus collateral attacks are discouraged. Many are filed, but usually only succeed when an obvious injustice or unconstitutional treatment occurred in the earlier case.
- Direct attack is that when there is a title, one would file for cancellation of the title for being null and void. An example of a collateral attack is when one owns a piece of property registered in his name and someone is occupying the property. The owner then files for "Ejectment" and the squatter argues that he would not vacate as the title is not valid. He is raising it as a defense and is not allowed by law for being a collateral attack.
- If you want to attack a title, it should be attacked directly and not collaterally.
No comments:
Post a Comment