This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To accord with the nature of the remedy of judicial partition, there are two stages defined under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The first relates to the determination of the rights of the parties to the property held in common. The second concerns the physical segregation of each party's just share in the property held in common. The second stage need not be gone into should the parties agree on the physical partition. As Justice Regalado discussed in De Mesa v. Court of Appeals:[21] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, in the case of Leonardo Lim De Mesa v. Hon. Court of Appeals,[6] it was stated: In the present case, the decision ordering partition and the rendition of accounting had already become final and executory. The execution thereof thus became a matter of right on the part of the plaintiffs, herein private respondents, and is a mandatory and ministerial duty on the part of the court. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the judgment debtor need not be given advance notice of the application for execution nor be afforded prior hearings thereon. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| The first stage is the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property.[26] | |||||