This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Third, the RTC ruled that the revival by a motion for reconsideration (filed on May 18, 1993) of the February 16, 1984 Order, granting the writ of possession, was seasonably filed by the respondent, pursuant to the period allowed under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Citing National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[26] the RTC held that "[i]n computing the time [limit] for suing out an execution, x x x the general rule is that there should not be included the time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of a party, or otherwise." The RTC noted that the running of the five-year period under Section 6 of the Rules of Court had been interrupted by the erroneous issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; the February 16, 1984 Order never attained finality and was overtaken by the issuance of the Order dated June 2, 1993, granting the issuance of an alias writ of execution.[27] | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| [4] In G.R. No. 93238. | |||||