Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 214 views

    Vargas vs. Cajucom

    Uploaded by

    csalipio24
    The Supreme Court denied the petition to quash the writ of execution. The Court ruled that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Parties will not be allowed to object to the execution by raising new issues of fact or law, except under certain circumstances such as when the writ was improvidently issued or is defective. Here, the judgment had become final and the issues raised had already been resolved, so there were no valid grounds to disturb the final judgment through quashing the writ of execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vargas vs. Cajucom

    Uploaded by

    csalipio24
    214 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition to quash the writ of execution. The Court ruled that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Parties will not be allowed to object to the execution by raising new issues of fact or law, except under certain circumstances such as when the writ was improvidently issued or is defective. Here, the judgment had become final and the issues raised had already been resolved, so there were no valid grounds to disturb the final judgment through quashing the writ of execution.

    Original Description:

    Vargas vs. Cajucom

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition to quash the writ of execution. The Court ruled that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Parties will not be allowed to object to the execution by raising new issues of fact or law, except under certain circumstances such as when the writ was improvidently issued or is defective. Here, the judgment had become final and the issues raised had already been resolved, so there were no valid grounds to disturb the final judgment through quashing the writ of execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    214 views2 pages

    Vargas vs. Cajucom

    Uploaded by

    csalipio24
    The Supreme Court denied the petition to quash the writ of execution. The Court ruled that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Parties will not be allowed to object to the execution by raising new issues of fact or law, except under certain circumstances such as when the writ was improvidently issued or is defective. Here, the judgment had become final and the issues raised had already been resolved, so there were no valid grounds to disturb the final judgment through quashing the writ of execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

    - QUASHAL OF WRIT OF EXECUTION


    (120) Vargas vs. Cajucom
    G.R. No. 171095, June 22, 2015

    DOCTRINE: Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is clear:


    Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. — Execution shall
    issue as a matter of right, or 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.
    The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice
    so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.39cralawlawlibrary
    Stated differently, once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled
    as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Its issuance is, in fact, the trial court's
    ministerial duty, the only limitation being that the writ must conform substantially to
    every essential particular of the judgment promulgated, more particularly, the orders or
    decrees in the dispositive portion of the decision. Even the holding in abeyance of the
    issuance of a writ of execution of a final and executory judgment can be considered
    abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

    FACTS: In 2000, Fortunato Cajucom wanted to put up a gasoline station in his lot but
    cannot do so due to the illegal structures built on the public highway. He sought the
    help of the City Mayor Marcial Vargas and Municipal Engineer Raymundo Del Rosario
    but they did not act. Cajucom ultimately sought a relief and prayed for the court to
    command the said mayor and engineer to cause the removal of all structures built on
    the concerned road.
    The RTC ruled in favor of Cajucom and a writ of execution was issued to enforce
    the judgment. The mayor and engineer then moved to quash the writ but to no avail.
    Petitioners’ Vargas et al. alleged that the writ varies the judgment as the writ
    allegedly would require them to demolish the houses of the other defendants, as
    opposed to the judgment which merely ordered them to comply with their duties under
    the implementing rules of the Local Government Code.

    ISSUE: Whether or not grounds exist to quash the writ of execution based on the
    petition.
    RULING: As general rule, the parties will not be allowed, after final judgment, to object
    to the execution by raising new issues of fact or of law, except when there had been a
    change in the situation of the parties which makes such execution inequitable or when it
    appears that the controversy has ever been submitted to the judgment of the court; or
    when it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is
    defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that judgment debt has
    been paid or otherwise satisfied; or when the writ has been issued without authority.
    And equally settled is the rule that when a judgment is final and executory, it
    becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect,
    except to correct clerical errors or to make mine pro tune entries, or when it is a void
    judgment. Outside of these exceptions, the court which rendered judgment only has the
    ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution. A decision that has attained finality
    becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. Any
    amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is
    null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that
    purpose. Thus, an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds
    the terms thereof is a nullity.
    In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the trial court's decision had become
    final and executory, as petitioners themselves did not appeal the same. In the current
    petition, neither is there an allegation that the judgment is a void one. But even if there
    is such an allegation, the issue is a settled one, as this Court itself, in the petition for
    annulment of judgment filed by petitioner's co-obligors, i.e., Puno et al., had upheld the
    judgment rather than declare the same void. That petition also alleged lack of
    jurisdiction and raised other issues which are similarly raised in the instant petition.
    Therefore, at this late stage, nothing more may be done to disturb the said final
    judgment.

    You might also like