Exe of Judgment

8/12/2019 Exe of Judgment

1/5

1

ANAMA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.187021, January 25, 2012

where it was held that:

Elementary is the rule that every motion must contain the mandatory

requirements of notice and hearing and that there must be proof of servicethereof. The Court has consistently held that a motion that fails to comply with

the above requirements is considered a worthless piece of paper which should

not be acted upon. The rule, however, is not absolute. There are motions that

can be acted upon by the court ex parte if these would not cause prejudice to the

other party. They are not strictly covered by the rigid requirement of the rules on

notice and hearing of motions.

The motion for execution of the Spouses Co is such kind of motion. It cannot be

denied that the judgment sought to be executed in this case had already become

final and executory. As such, the Spouses Co have every right to the issuance of a

writ of execution and the RTC has the ministerial duty to enforce the same. This

right on the part of the Spouses Co and duty on the part of the RTC are based on

Section 1 and Section 2 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure

provides, as follows:

Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. Executionshall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that

disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to

appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.

If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the

execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of

the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the

judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and

of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.

Xxxxx

As can be gleaned therefrom, under Paragraph 1 of Section 1 of Rule 39 of

the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the Spouses Co can have their motion

for execution executed as a matter of right without the needed notice and

hearing requirement to petitioner. This is in contrast to the provision of

Paragraph 2 of Section 1 and Section 2 where there must be notice to the adverse

party. In the case of Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. v. Virginia D.

Vda. De Hernandez, it was written:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/187021.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/187021.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/187021.htm


2/5


3/5

3

Serras action prompted RCBC to file the Annulment case. Clearly, the

delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra for his own

advantage.

Thus, the pendency of the Annulment case effectively suspended the five-year

period to enforce through a motion the decision in the Specific Performance

case. Since the decision in the Annulment case attained finality on 3 March

2009 and RCBCs motion for execution was filed on 25 August 2011, RCBCs

motion is deemed filed within the five-year period for enforcement of a

decision through a motion.

Herminia Acbang v. Hon. Jimmy Luczon, Jr., et al.,G.R. No. 164246, January 15,

2014.

EJECTMENT immediate execution of judgment; requisites for stay. The ruling in

Chua v. Court of Appeals (286 SCRA 437, 444-445 [1998]) is instructive on the

means of staying the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case, to

wit:

As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit isimmediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from

the loss of possession of the property in question. To stay the immediate

execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending the foregoing

provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant

perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeasbond; and (3) he periodically

deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The

failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the

outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being

ministerial and imperative. Hence, if the defendant-appellant perfected theappeal but failed to file a supersedeasbond, the immediate execution of the

judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of

a supersedeasbond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is

not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeasbond should be filed within the

period for the perfection of the appeal.

In short, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is

immediately executory, but the defendant, to stay its immediate execution, must:

(1) perfect an appeal; (2) file a supersedeasbond; and (3) periodically deposit therentals becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. Herminia Acbang v.

Hon. Jimmy Luczon, Jr., et al.,G.R. No. 164246, January 15, 2014.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/january2014/164246.pdf


4/5

4

Execution; Terceria; when proper. The right of a third-party claimant to file a

terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. Corollary thereto, before the

court can exercise its supervisory power to direct the release of the property

mistakenly levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful owner, the claimant

must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon.In Spouses Sy v. Hon. Discaya(260 Phil. 401 [1990]) we declared that for a third-

party claim or a terceria to prosper, the claimant must first sufficiently establish

his right on the property:

[A] third person whose property was seized by a sheriff to answer for the

obligation of the judgment debtor may invoke the supervisory power of he court

which authorized such execution. Upon due application by the third person and

after summary hearing, the court may command that the property be released

from the mistaken levy and restored to the rightful owner or possessor. What saidcourt can do in these instances, however, is limited to a determination of whether

the sheriff has acted rightly or wrongly in the performance of his duties in the

execution of judgment, more specifically, if he has indeed taken hold of property

not belonging to the judgment debtor. The court does not and cannot pass upon

the question of title to the property, with any character of finality. It can treat of

the matter only insofar as may be necessary to decide if the sheriff has acted

correctly or not. It can require the sheriff to restore the property to the claimants

possession if warranted by the evidence. However, if the claimants proofs do not

persuade the court of the validity of his title or right of possession thereto, theclaim will be denied.

Magdalena T. Villasi v. Filomena Garcia, substituted by his heirs, namely,

Ermelinda H. Garcia, et al.,G.R. No. 190106, January 15, 2014.

Execution of judgments; Immediate execution in Small Claims cases. Section 23 of

the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that the decision shall

immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases

and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties.A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v.Emma Mondejar, accompanied by her husband, Efren Mondejar,G.R. No. 200804.

January 22, 2014.

Execution of judgments; rationale. It is almost trite to say that execution is the

fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the life of the law, ratio legis est anima,

this Court has zealously guarded against any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and

deny the prevailing litigant his right to savour the fruit of his victory. A judgment,

if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty triumph for the prevailing

party. Magdalena T. Villasi v. Filomena Garcia, substituted by his heirs, namely,Ermelinda H. Garcia, et al.,G.R. No. 190106, January 15, 2014.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891697/190106


5/5

5

ERNESTO VILLEZA vs. GERMAN MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES,

INC., et.al ( GR G.R. No. 182937)

An action for revival of judgment is governed by Article 1144 (3), Article

1152 of the Civil Code and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Thus,

Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten

yearsfrom the time the right of action accrues:

x x x x

(3) Upon a judgment

Article 1152 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 1152. The period for prescription of actions to demand the

fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment commences from

the time the judgment became final.

In PLDT Employees Union v. PLDT Free Telephone Workers Union (97 Phil. 424)

An order or judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of the pending

action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words,

a final order is that which gives an end to the litigation when the order or

judgment does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be

done upon the merits, it is merely interlocutory.

Antonio v. Samonte, (1 SCRA 1072)

A final order of judgment finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights,

or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some

definite and separate branch thereof, and concludes them until it is reversed or

set aside. Where no issue is left for future consideration, except the fact of

compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the judgment or order, such

judgment or order is final and appealable.

Exe of Judgment

Documents

Transcript of Exe of Judgment