This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the onset, the Court stresses that rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be liberally construed.[13] Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their operation, is warranted when compelling reasons exist or when the purpose of justice requires it. Thus, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on sheer technicalities.[14] | |||||
|
2014-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the OMB is authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure. As such, it likewise holds the power to amend or modify said rules as the interest of justice may require.[13] The emerging trend of jurisprudence is more inclined to the liberal and flexible application of procedural rules. Nonetheless, rules of procedure still exist to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy dispensation of cases; to this end, inflexibility or liberality must be weighed. Thus, the relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it.[14] | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that "the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities."[30] "Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance of [procedural rules], and their relaxation or suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed."[31] | |||||
|
2013-09-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property if it is not redeemed within one year from registration of the sale and title is consolidated in his name. "As the confirmed owner, the purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute. There is even no need for him to post a bond, and it becomes the ministerial duty of the courts," upon application and proof of title, to issue a Writ of Possession to place him in possession.[84] This rule is clear from the language of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The same provision of the Rules, however, provides as an exception that when a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor, the duty of the court to issue a Writ of Possession ceases to be ministerial. Thus:SEC. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given. If no redemption be made within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and no other redemption has been made, and notice thereof given, and the time for redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance and possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one (1) year from the date of the registration of the sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the officer making the sale or by his successor in office, and in the latter case shall have the same validity as though the officer making the sale had continued in office and executed it. | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| We repeated the above rule in Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc.,[34] in this wise: It is a time-honored legal precept that after the consolidation of titles in the buyer's name, for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, entitlement to a writ of possession becomes a matter of right. As the confirmed owner, the purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute. There is even no need for him to post a bond, and it is the ministerial duty of the courts to issue the same upon proper application and proof of title. To accentuate the writ's ministerial character, the Court has consistently disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance despite a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself. | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| [13] G.R. No. 188051, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 637. | |||||