Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONARDO ARCEN v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179638 2013-07-08	MIRANDA v. PABLO R. MIRANDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
An action for revival of a judgment cannot modify, alter, or reverse the original judgment, which is already final and executory.[1]
	GR NO. 155488 2006-12-06	ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the present case, respondents' cause of action in Civil Case No. Q-93-17133 is anchored on the claim that petitioner and her co-defendants maliciously instituted a criminal complaint before the NBI and a petition before the SEC which prevented the respondents from leaving the country and paralyzed the latters' business transactions. Respondents pray that actual and moral damages, plus attorney's fees, be awarded in their favor. The action instituted by respondents affect the parties alone, not the whole world. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.[33] Thus, it is an action in personam. As such, personal service of summons upon the defendants is essential in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons.[34]
	GR No. 127692 2004-03-10	FORTUNATO GOMEZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem.[22] The objective sought in petitioners' complaint was to establish a claim against respondents for their alleged refusal to convey to them the title to the two parcels of land that they inherited from their father, Jesus Trocino, who was one of the sellers of the properties to petitioners. Hence, to repeat, Civil Case No. CEB-11103 is an action in personam because it is an action against persons, namely, herein respondents, on the basis of their personal liability. As such, personal service of summons upon the defendants is essential in order for the court to acquire of jurisdiction over their persons.[23]
	GR No. 144662 2003-10-13	SPS. EFREN MASON AND DIGNA MASON v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
We find merit in private respondent's submissions. Since we have ruled that service of summons upon private respondent through its filing clerk cannot be considered valid, it necessarily follows therefore that the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City did not acquire jurisdiction over private respondent.[18] Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings held before it, including the order of default, are null and void.[19] As private respondent points out, the second issue has become moot and academic.
	GR No. 132362 2001-06-28	PIO BARRETTO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
We grant the petition. Final and executory decisions, more so with those already executed, may no longer be amended except only to correct errors which are clerical in nature. They become the law of the case and are immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness.[14] Amendments or alterations which substantially affect such judgments as well as the entire proceedings held for that purpose are null and void for lack of jurisdiction.[15] The reason lies in the fact that public policy dictates that litigations must be terminated at some definite time and that the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.[16]