Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF MANILA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175339 2008-12-16	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ALFREDO C. FLORES TINGA, J.
A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. In such a situation, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, and issuance thereof is a ministerial duty of the court.[16] This policy is clearly and emphatically embodied in Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, to wit:SECTION 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
	GR No. 130228 2004-07-27	BERNABE FOSTER-GALLEGO v. SPS. ROMEO AND VIVIEN GALANG CARPIO, J.
The instant petition must also fail because it anchors petitioner's claim on a cancelled certificate of title. Petitioner's cancelled title cannot cast a cloud on the current title the Spouses Galang now hold. On 19 December 1983, RTC-Branch 138 cancelled TCT No. 435402 in its decision in Civil Case No. 5801. With the lapse of more than two decades, RTC-Branch 138's Decision has long gained finality by operation of law. A judgment becomes final upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal is perfected.[41] Being final, the RTC-Branch 138 Decision is no longer subject to review by appeal.
	GR No. 146364 2004-06-03	COLITO T. PAJUYO v. CA CARPIO, J.
A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. Finality of judgment becomes a fact on the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal is perfected.[23] The RTC decision could not have gained finality because the Court of Appeals granted the 30-day extension to Guevarra.
	AM No. P-03-1700 2004-02-23	TEODORA A. CAPACETE v. JOEL O. ARELLANO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Incidentally, the RTC erred in issuing the "Writ of Execution" after the finality of the Decision. It should have remanded the case to the MTC for execution of the judgment. In City of Manila vs. Court of Appeals,[9] we held:"The rule is that if the judgment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed to the regional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter became final, the case should be remanded through the regional trial court to the metropolitan trial court for execution [Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol.1, p. 276]. The only exception is the execution pending appeal, which can be issued by the regional trial court under Sec. 8 of Rule 70 or the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court under Sec. 10 of the same Rule." On another tack, it is noteworthy that the award of moral damages is likewise erroneous. The only damages that can be recovered in an ejectment suit are the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property.[10]