This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed,[18] as it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment which is sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law.[19] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On October 30, 2002, the CA rendered herein assailed Decision[20] dismissing the petition. The CA held that petitioner's insistence that Barrozo v. Macaraeg[21] does not apply since said case stated that "when there is a right to redeem inadequacy of price should not be material" holds no water as what is obtaining in this case is not "mere inadequacy," but an inadequacy that shocks the senses; that Buan v. Court of Appeals[22] properly applies since the questioned levy covered 15 parcels of land posited to have an aggregate value of P83,616,000.00 which shockingly exceeded the judgment debt of only around P6,000,000.00. | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the writ of execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.[23] To allow the respondents to receive the P1.2 Million without any lawful basis would be to sanction unjust enrichment and cause unlawful deprivation of the property levied on execution. The August 6, 1996 Order is void as it was issued in excess of the trial court's jurisdiction and therefore cannot be a valid basis of the RTC in executing the final judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 1942 and 1950. | |||||