Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DESTILERIA AYALA v. TAN TAY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 144444 2008-04-04	STATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the November 16, 1999 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals[3] (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 48793. The dispositive part of the Decision reads thus:
	GR No. 144444 2008-04-04	STATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"Thus, the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it granted and issued a writ of execution under Section 1, Rule 39 despite the fact that the decision had not become final and executory."[20]
	GR No. 144444 2003-04-03	STATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"Thus, the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it granted and issued a writ of execution under Section 1, Rule 39 despite the fact that the decision had not become final and executory."[20] Neither can the CA's refusal to nullify the March 11, 1987 Order in the other Petitions be construed as a declaration of its validity. The CA painstakingly explained:"[I]ndeed in CA-G.R. SP No. 29147, this Court actually desisted from categorically ruling on the issue of the validity of the order of [the RTC] dated March 11, 1987 as well as the other court processes. However, contrary to [SITI's] assertions, no substantial rights were determined by reason of such refusal to rule on said issue. This Court declined to rule on said issue principally because the same was not raised in the petition, thus, the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to rule on a matter foreign to that brought to it. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. [121075], x x x upheld the refusal of the Court of Appeals to rule on said issue simply because it agreed that the latter court had no jurisdiction to do so in said particular petition, which was filed only for the purpose of assailing the RTC order dismissing Delta's appeal."[21] As matters stood prior to CA-GR SP No. 48793 (the presently appealed CA Decision), directly or inferentially, there was yet no judgment or final order on the merits regarding the March 11, 1987 Order for the execution of the RTC Decision and the proceedings conducted relative thereto. Neither was one made in CA-GR SP No. 23068, 29147 or GR No. 121075.