This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this case, the enforcement of the writ of execution which would evict petitioner from her residence is manifestly prejudicial to her interest. However, she possesses no legal right that merits the protection of the courts through the writ of preliminary injunction. Her right to possess the property in question has been declared inferior or inexistent in relation to respondents in the ejectment case in the MeTC decision which has become final and executory. [21] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in Medina v. City Sheriff, Manila,[125] we have stated: For this petition to be granted, it must be shown that the respondent appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment, for certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal. | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Private respondents claim that the trial court, in issuing the writ, was merely performing a ministerial duty. While it becomes the trial court's ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution when a judgment or order becomes final and executory, a writ of execution may be refused on equitable grounds.[10] In this case, it will be unjust to petitioners if we compel them to accept the three titles despite the lapse of the agreed period. Contractual obligations between parties have the force of law between them and absent any allegation that the same are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, they must be complied with in good faith.[11] | |||||