This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court.[13] Execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party thereto, did not have his day in court.[14] Due process dictates that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against innocent third parties.[15] | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to re-open any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor's case nor the propriety or correctness of the first judgment.[13] An action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action, different and distinct from either the recovery of property case or the reconstitution case, wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered.[14] Revival of judgment is premised on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent action, is already final and executory.[15] | |||||
|
2008-03-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The generally accepted principle is that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court.[9] Execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party in the case, did not have his day in court.[10] Due process requires that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against one who did not have his day in court.[11] | |||||