Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF LATE JUSTICE JOSE B. L. REYES v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 157480 2005-05-06	PRYCE CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT PANGANIBAN, J.
For sure, these stipulations are valid and are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Neither is there anything objectionable about the inclusion in the Contract of mandatory provisions concerning the rights and obligations of the parties.[11] Being the primary law between the parties, it governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations. A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.[12] It is well to recall that courts, be they trial or appellate, have no power to make or modify contracts.[13] Neither can they save parties from disadvantageous provisions.
	A M No. CA-01-32 2002-01-23	HEIRS OF LATE JUSTICE JOSE B. L. REYES v. JUSTICES DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA PARDO, J.
On November 5, 1997, Manila Builders elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.[6] On November 26, 1997, the trial court granted complainants' motion for execution, which order was correspondingly issued on December 1, 1997. On December 8, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued an order restraining the execution of the ejectment judgment.[7]
	A M No. CA-01-32 2002-01-23	HEIRS OF LATE JUSTICE JOSE B. L. REYES v. JUSTICES DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA PARDO, J.
On September 14, 1998, complainants filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.[14] On September 17, 1998, complainants filed with the Court of Appeals their consolidated comment on the very urgent motion for execution pending appeal, with motion to defer consideration due to the pendency of their petition with the Supreme Court.
	GR No. 119811 2001-08-30	SOCORRO S. TORRES v. DEODORO J. SISON PARDO, J.
Once final and executory, the judgment shall be remanded to the lower court, where a motion for its execution may be filed after its entry.[31] On June 18, 1990, the Court dismissed the petition in G. R. No. 92248, and on July 25, 1990, the decision became final and executory. It was proper for the trial court to grant the respondents' motion for a writ of execution on July 14, 1994, after the entry of judgment of the decision on July 25, 1990. Consequently, execution may be effected as a matter of course before the decision becomes stale.[32]