Desarrollo normativo

1. EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION: Normally, execution will issue as amatter of right only (a) when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been filed;

or (d) when, having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin. Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule. As such exception, the court’s discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of good reasons.

"Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity” (ROSARIO T. FLORENDO VS. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP., G.R. NO.

167976, JANUARY 20, 2010, ABAD, J.).

1.1. MOTION FOR EXECUTION: THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXECUTION IN AN AMPARO OR HABEAS CORPUS DECISION. (LT. COL.

ROGELIO BOAC, ET AL. VS. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. EMPEÑO, G.R. NOS. 184461-62, MAY 31, 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.)

1.2. VARIANCE IN THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE WRIT OF EXECUTION: IF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION VARIED THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT AND EXCEEDED THEM, IT HAD NO VALIDITY. (KKK FOUNDATION,

INS. VS. HON. ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS, ET AL. G.R. NO. 163785, DECEMBER 27, 2007, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING).

2. EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDING. (TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION VS.

LUIS FAJARDO & THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PINAS CITY, G.R. NO. 150462, JUNE 15, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

2.1. WHEN THERE IS A PENDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AN ORDER GRANTING EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS IMPROPER AND PREMATURE. (JP LATEX TECHNOLOGY, INC. VS. BALLONS GRANGER BALLOONS INC., G.R. NO. 177121, MARCH 16, 2009, TINGA, J.).

2.2. AN ALLEGED ADMISSION BY THE DEFENDANT OF ITS LIABILITY IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR ALLOWING DISCRETIONARY APPEAL.

(GEOLOGISTICS, INC. VS. GATEWAY ELECTRONICS, G.R. NOS. 174256-57, MARCH 25, 2009, TINGA, J.).

2.3. EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL APPLIES TO ELECTION CASES.

(ELENITA I. BALAJONDA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION), G.R. NO.

166032, FEBRUARY 28, 2005, TINGA, J.)

3. GENERAL RULE: THE RULE ON EXECUTION BY MOTION OR BY INDEPENDENT ACTION UNDER SECTION 6, RULE 39 APPLIES ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS AND NOT TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS AN EX PARTE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION AS IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A CIVIL ACTION. (SPOUSES ERNESTO AND VICENTA TOPACIO, VS. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, G.R. NO. 157644, NOVEMBER 17, 2010, BRION, J.).

3.1. EXCEPTION: SECTION 6, RULE 39 REFERS TO CIVIL ACTIONS AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, SUCH AS A LAND REGISTRATION CASE. (ROLANDO TING VS. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIRIO, G.R. NO.

168913, MARCH 14, 2007, CARPIO MORALES, J).

3.1.1 EXCEPTION: UNDER SECTION 6, RULE 39, A FINAL JUDGMENT MAY BE ENFORCED BY MOTION WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTRY, BUT NOT THEREAFTER. THE RULE HOWEVER IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND ADMITS OF EXCEPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS WHEN THE DELAY IN ENFORCING THE JUDGMENT IS CAUSED BY THE PARTY ASSAILING THE FILING OF THE MOTION. (CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. V. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., G.R.

149053, MARCH 7, 2007, CORONA, J.).

3.2. THE PROPER VENUE DEPENDS ON THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PRESENT ACTION FOR REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT IS A REAL ACTION OR A PERSONAL ACTION. (ADELAIDA INFANTE VS. ARAN BUILDERS, INC., G.R. NO. 156596, AUGUST 24, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.)

4. EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MONEY JUDGMENTS BY THE SHERIFF: MONEY JUDGMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE ONLY AGAINST PROPERTY UNQUESTIONABLY BELONGING TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR. (CRISPIN SARMIENTO VS. ABAD AND LUISITO P. MENDIOLA, A.M. NO. P-07-2383, 15 DECEMBER 2010, CARPIO, J.).

4.1. THE LAW MANDATES THAT IN THE EXECUTION OF A MONEY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR SHALL PAY EITHER IN CASH, CERTIFIED BANK CHECK PAYABLE TO THE JUDGMENT OBLIGEE, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LATTER. NOWHERE DOES THE LAW MENTION PROMISSORY NOTES AS A FORM OF PAYMENT. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS WHEN SUCH FORM OF PAYMENT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR. (MERLINDA L. DAGOOC VS. ROBERTO A. ERLINA, A.M. NO. P-04-1857, MARCH 16, 2005, CORONA, J.)

4.2. IN DETERMINING PROPERTIES TO BE LEVIED UPON, THE RULES REQUIRE THE SHERIFF TO LEVY ONLY ON THOSE “PROPERTIES OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR” WHICH ARE “NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION.” (GOLDEN SUN FINANCE CORP. VS. RICARDO ALBANO, A.M. NO. P-11-2888, JULY 27, 2011 BRION, J.).

5. EXECUTION SALE: THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR ALLEGING LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE POSTING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUCTION SALE (SECTION 15, RULES 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT) IS BEHOOVED TO PROVE SUCH ALLEGATION. (RUBEN C. REYES VS. TANG SOAT ING

& ANDO G. SY, G.R. NO. 185620, DECEMBER 14, 2011, PEREZ, J.).

5.1. WHEN THE TITLE IS CONSOLIDATED IN THE NAME OF THE MORTGAGEE, THE WRIT OF POSSESSION BECOMES A MATTER OF RIGHT ON THE PART OF THE MORTGAGEE, AND IT IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ISSUE THE SAME. (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SPOUSES WILFREDO GATAL AND AZUCENA GATAL, G.R. NO.

138567, MARCH 04, 2005, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.)

6. INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED: 1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution; 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) 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 the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. (GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).

7. TERCERIA: THE REMEDY OF TERCERIA IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO A THIRD PERSON OTHER THAN THE JUDGMENT OBLIGOR OR THE LATTER'S

AGENT WHO CLAIMS A PROPERTY LEVIED ON. HENCE, NOT BEING A THIRD PARTY TO THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS, THE REMEDY OF TERCERIA IS NOT AVAILABLE. (PENTA CAPITAL FINANCE CORP. VS. HON. TEODORO BAY ET AL., G.R.

NO. 162100, JANUARY 18, 2012, SERENO, J.).

7.1. HUSBAND CAN FILE A THIRD-PARTY CLAIM OR SEPARATE ACTION IF CONJUGAL PROPERTY IS BEING LEVIED UPON TO ANSWER FOR THE SEPARATE OBLIGATION OF THE WIFE WHICH DID NOT REDOUND TO THE BENEFIT OF THE FAMILY. (SPOUSES BUADO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO.

145222, APRIL 24, 2009, TINGA, J.).

8. RES JUDICATA: For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the following requisites must be present: (1) the judgment or order sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the first case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. As to the fourth element, it is important to note that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects:

first, “bar by prior judgment” which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of Court and second, “conclusiveness of judgment” which is provided in Section 47 (c) of the same Rule. There is “bar by prior judgment” when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.

On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. SIA, G.R. NO. 165836, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING, J.).

9. LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES IN A SITUATION WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT HAS MADE A RULING ON A QUESTION ON APPEAL AND THEREAFTER REMANDS THE CASE TO THE LOWER COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; THE QUESTION SETTLED BY THE APPELLATE COURT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE AT THE LOWER COURT AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL. (VIOS VS. PANTANGCO, JR., G.R. NO. 163103, FEBRUARY 6, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.).

10. REDEMPTION: THE GENERAL RULE IN REDEMPTION IS THAT IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT A PERSON OFFERING TO REDEEM MANIFESTS HIS DESIRE TO DO SO. THE STATEMENT OF INTENTION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ACTUAL AND SIMULTANEOUS TENDER OF PAYMENT. (CHINA BANKING CORPORATION VS. SPS. MARTIR, G.R. NO. 184252, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, 3RD DIVISION, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).

11. DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT: WELL-SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT A DECISION THAT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY CAN NO LONGER BE MODIFIED EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO CORRECT ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW. (DOMINIC GRIFFITH VS. ANGELITO ESTUR, JUAN OFALSA, AND ROLANDO EREVE, G.R. NO. 161777, MAY 7, 2008, CARPIO, J.).

“The only way to keep what we have is by giving it away. Kindly share this material to all in need without discrimination of any kind, and surely the blessings will return to you a thousand fold.”

Good luck to all of you. See you in Court!

PROF. CHRISTIAN “KIT” VILLASIS