Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE E. HONRADO v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 185920 2010-07-20	JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS v. DANILO PANGILINAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
And in both cases, whether under the Civil Code or the Family Code, it is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for exemption must be set up and proved.[15]
	GR NO. 161533 2009-06-05	FILOMENA SONEJA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari is proper to correct only errors of jurisdiction committed by respondent court, tribunal or administrative agency.[18] Public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case, or in excess of jurisdiction if it oversteps its authority as determined by law. Grave abuse of discretion is committed when respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[19] In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope as it is limited to resolving only cases of jurisdiction.[20]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1762 2008-12-17	SERGIO v. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is thus beyond dispute that the judgment in Civil Case Nos. 1291 and 4647 had already attained finality. The special order of demolition was issued by respondent judge so that the final judgment could be fully implemented and executed, in accordance with the principle that the execution of a final judgment is a matter of right on the part of the prevailing party, and mandatory and ministerial on the part of the court or tribunal issuing the judgment.[25] To be sure, it is essential to the effective administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[26]
	GR No. 165060 2008-11-27	ALBINO JOSEF v. OTELIO SANTOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Being void, the July 16, 2003 Order could not have conferred any right to respondent. Any writ of execution based on it is likewise void. Although we have held in several cases[26] that a claim for exemption from execution of the family home should be set up and proved before the sale of the property at public auction, and failure to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption since the right of exemption is a personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor which must be claimed by the judgment debtor himself at the time of the levy or within a reasonable period thereafter, the circumstances of the instant case are different. Petitioner claimed exemption from execution of his family home soon after respondent filed the motion for issuance of a writ of execution, thus giving notice to the trial court and respondent that a property exempt from execution may be in danger of being subjected to levy and sale. Thereupon, the trial court is called to observe the procedure as herein laid out; on the other hand, the respondent should observe the procedure prescribed in Article 160 of the Family Code, that is, to obtain an order for the sale on execution of the petitioner's family home, if so, and apply the proceeds - less the maximum amount allowed by law under Article 157 of the Code which should remain with the petitioner for the rebuilding of his family home - to his judgment credit. Instead, both the trial court and respondent completely ignored petitioner's argument that the properties subject of the writ are exempt from execution.
	GR No. 175371 2008-04-30	BENITO J. BRIZUELA v. ABRAHAM DINGLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Third, respondents may seek issuance of a writ of execution of the 28 October 2005 Decision of the NLRC on the basis that PMPI did not move for the reconsideration thereof nor filed its own petition for certiorari to assail the same. Consequently, the said Decision should already be considered final and executory as to PMPI.[36] Once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party, the respondents, in this case, can have the judgment executed as a matter of right.[37]
	GR No. 177703 2008-01-28	VILMA G. ARRIOLA and ANT RONALD G. ARRIOLA v. JOHN NABOR C. ARRIOLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court ruled in Honrado v. Court of Appeals[33] that a claim for exception from execution or forced sale under Article 153 should be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Herein petitioners timely objected to the inclusion of the subject house although for a different reason.
	GR NO. 164740 2006-07-31	SPS. EDUARDO AND ELSA VERSOLA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The settled rule is that the right to exemption or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code is a personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor and as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff, but by the debtor himself before the sale of the property at public auction.[8] It is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for exemption must be set up and proved to the Sheriff.[9] Failure to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exception.[10]
	GR NO. 166039 2006-06-26	DIGITEL v. MARIQUIT SORIANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It was thus incumbent for Mariquit to prove before the appellate court grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.[41]