Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA AND REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 168672 2010-08-08	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. DNG REALTY PERALTA, J.
Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended, refers to a situation wherein the purchaser seeks possession of the foreclosed property during the redemption period. Upon the purchaser's filing of the ex parte petition and posting of the appropriate bond, the RTC shall, as a matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of possession in the purchaser's favor.[9] But equally well settled is the rule that a writ of possession will issue as a matter of course, even without the filing and approval of a bond, after consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new TCT in the name of the purchaser.[10] Thus, if under Section 7 of Act 3135 as amended, the RTC has the power during the period of redemption to issue a writ of possession on the ex parte application of the purchaser, there is no reason why it should not also have the same power after the expiration of the redemption period, especially where a new title had already been issued in the name of the purchaser.[11] Thus, after the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right and the issuance of such writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.[12] The basis of this right to possession is the purchaser's ownership of the property.[13]
	GR No. 174290 2009-01-20	ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the present case, what were filed by the private respondent before the appellate court were an appeal and a motion relative to the same case. The appeal and the motion filed by the private respondent cannot be regarded as separate and distinct cases or suits. It is settled that the office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring up a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion was filed. A motion is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy.[55] Private respondent's Motion to Reinstate/Re-annotate Notice of Lis Pendens is, at the very least, a mere reiteration of one particular issue already raised in the appeal, and an insistence on the urgency of resolving the same ahead of the other issues. The filing of said Motion cannot be considered forum shopping and the admission thereof by the Court of Appeals did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 167280 2008-04-30	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE QUISUMBING, J.
First, no extrinsic fraud was employed by petitioner in not informing respondents of the institution of the writ of possession case. A petition for the issuance of the writ, under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is not an ordinary action filed in court, by which one party "sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or prevention or redress of a wrong." [26] It is in the nature of an ex parte motion which the court hears only one side. It is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party, and without notice to or consent by any party adversely affected. [27] Accordingly, upon the filing of a proper motion by the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, and the approval of the corresponding bond, the writ of possession issues as a matter of course and the trial court has no discretion on this matter. [28]
	GR No. 157912 2007-12-13	ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER v. ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate. In Arquiza v. Court of Appeals,[6] the Court explained thus:x x x The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. A motion is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy.[7] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Forum shopping may only exist where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[9] Litis pendentia as a ground for dismissing a civil action is that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action is unnecessary and vexatious. The elements of litis pendentia are as follows: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[10] From the foregoing, it is clear that sans litis pendentia or res judicata, there can be no forum shopping.
	GR NO. 156542 2007-06-26	CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT v. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[22] In other words, when litis pendentia or res judicata does not exist, neither can forum shopping exist.[23]
	GR NO. 163735 2006-11-24	GREEN ASIA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPS. RENATO AND DELIA LEGASPI v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the first issue, it bears stressing that a certification on non-forum shopping is required only in a complaint or a petition which is an initiatory pleading. In this case, the subject petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by private respondent is not an initiatory pleading. Although private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition, it is more properly a motion. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but its purpose. The purpose of a motion is not to initiate litigation, but to bring up a matter arising in the progress of the case where the motion is filed.[15]
	GR NO. 147902 2006-03-17	SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Applying the foregoing criteria in the instant case, litis pendentia does not obtain in this case because of the absence of the second and third requisites. The issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.[39] Thus, insofar as Spec. Proc. No. 99-00988-D and Civil Case No. 99-03169-D pending before different branches of RTC Dagupan City are concerned, there is no litis pendentia.
	GR NO. 163410 2005-09-16	CONCEPCION R. ANCHETA v. METROPOLITAN BANK CALLEJO, SR., J.
A certificate of non-forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings, and a petition for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not a complaint or an initiatory pleading. Indeed, this Court in Spouses Arquiza v. Court of Appeals,[15] held that:... The certification against forum shopping is required only in a complaint or other initiatory pleading. The ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by the respondent is not an initiatory pleading. Although the private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition, it is, nonetheless, a motion. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but rather its purpose. The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. A motion is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy. An application for a writ of possession is a mere incident in the registration proceeding. Hence, although it was denominated as a "petition," it was in substance merely a motion. Thus, the CA correctly made the following observations: