Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BERNARDO DE LEON v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY SUBSTITUTED BY CITY OF PARAÑAQUE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182814 2015-07-15	LIGAYA MENDOZA v. CA PEREZ, J.
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final the issue or the cause involved therein should be laid to rest. This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental consideration of public policy and sound practice. In fact, nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact and law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[29] Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the "life of the law."[30] To frustrate it by dilatory scheme on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the best interest of justice that this court write finis to this litigation.[31]
	GR No. 171095 2015-06-22	MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS v. FORTUNATO CAJUCOM PERALTA, J.
It is a consistent practice that once a judgment has become final and executory, a writ of execution is issued as a matter of course, in the absence of any order restraining its issuance.[37] In addition, even a writ of demolition, if the case calls for it, is ancillary to the process of execution and is logically also issued as a consequence of the writ of execution earlier issued.[38]
	GR No. 207682 2014-12-10	CONRADO B. NICART v. MA. JOSEFINA C. TITONG VELASCO JR., J.
In this regard, the Court has, in several cases, held that there are instances where, even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy.[23] Unfortunately, the RTC did not find the said principle applicable in Civil Case No. 4236 as it disregarded the fact that there is an intimate correlation between the two proceedings though technically no prejudicial question exists as it properly pertains to civil and criminal cases.[24]
	GR No. 162063 2014-03-31	LEONORA A. PASCUAL v. JOSEFINO L. DAQUIOAG BERSAMIN, J.
The denial of Pascual's free patent application was based on the recognition of Almazan Villamor's ownership of the subject properties. The consequence of the denial was the directive for Pascual to refrain from entering the property, and from possessing the subject property declared to be owned by Almazan Villamor. Upon the final finding of the ownership in the judgment in favor of Almazan Villamor, the delivery of the possession of the property was deemed included in the decision, considering that the claim itself of Pascual to the possession had been based also on ownership.[24]
	GR No. 191661 2013-08-13	CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI v. EMERITA B. ODEÑA SERENO, C.J.
To once again reopen that issue through a different avenue would defeat the existence of our courts as final arbiters of legal controversies. Having attained finality, the decision is beyond review or modification even by this Court.[76] Every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable.[77] Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the latter's case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the "life of the law."[78]
	GR No. 187021 2012-01-25	DOUGLAS F. ANAMA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
As a final note, it bears to point out that this case has been dragging for more than 15 years and the execution of this Court's judgment in PEA v. CA has been delayed for almost ten years now simply because De Leon filed a frivolous appeal against the RTC's order of execution based on arguments that cannot hold water. As a consequence, PEA is prevented from enjoying the fruits of the final judgment in its favor. The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General in its contention that every litigation must come to an end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the "life of the law." To frustrate it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the courts. It is in the interest of justice that this Court should write finis to this litigation.[13]