Short answer. A judgment of annulment sets aside and voids the questioned judgment without prejudice to refiling the original action in the proper court. But if annulment was granted for extrinsic fraud, the court may instead order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted.
What the law says
A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.
Rule 47, Section 7 — Effect of judgment. Read the full provision →
What the law says
where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.
Rule 47, Section 7 — Effect of judgment. Read the full provision →
Voided, but the underlying dispute can return
Annulment does not permanently resolve the underlying dispute in the petitioner's favor — it clears the slate. Section 7 states: a judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. The parties may find themselves litigating the same dispute again from scratch.
An exception for extrinsic fraud
Where the ground for annulment was extrinsic fraud specifically, the outcome can be more efficient than a total refiling. Where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.
Why the ground for annulment shapes what comes next
This distinction means the practical consequence of winning an annulment petition depends heavily on which ground supported it — extrinsic fraud can lead to a more streamlined path back into the same case through a new trial, while other grounds leave the petitioner to start the original action over in the proper court, with all the added time and cost that a fresh filing involves.
Why lack of jurisdiction does not get the new-trial route
The new-trial alternative under Section 7 is tied specifically to extrinsic fraud, not to the other principal ground for annulment, lack of jurisdiction. A judgment void for lack of jurisdiction is void from the start, so there is no proceeding to simply reopen through a new trial order the way there is with a judgment procured through extrinsic fraud; the proper court with actual jurisdiction has to take up the dispute as a new action instead.
Related provisions
- Rule 47, Section 7 — Effect of judgment
- Rule 47, Section 1 — Coverage
- Rule 47, Section 8 — Suspension of prescriptive period