Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Macahilig vs. Magalit

    Uploaded by

    fina_ong6259
    127 views1 page
    The case involves a disputed lot of land that was subject to competing fishpond applications. Both the petitioner and respondents claimed rights over the occupied land. Government agencies previously ruled the lot belonged to the respondents. The petitioner appealed but their petitions were denied. The respondents then sought a writ of execution to gain possession, but the petitioner refused to vacate. The trial court initially ruled it had no jurisdiction, but later ordered the petitioner to vacate when the respondents filed contempt charges for refusing to leave. The petitioner claimed the initial ruling barred further orders, but the court found the first was an interlocutory order as it did not decide the merits, only a technical point. As such, res judicata did not apply to prevent the later

    Original Description:

    Civil procedure, judgment

    Original Title

    macahilig vs. Magalit

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involves a disputed lot of land that was subject to competing fishpond applications. Both the petitioner and respondents claimed rights over the occupied land. Government agencies previously ruled the lot belonged to the respondents. The petitioner appealed but their petitions were denied. The respondents then sought a writ of execution to gain possession, but the petitioner refused to vacate. The trial court initially ruled it had no jurisdiction, but later ordered the petitioner to vacate when the respondents filed contempt charges for refusing to leave. The petitioner claimed the initial ruling barred further orders, but the court found the first was an interlocutory order as it did not decide the merits, only a technical point. As such, res judicata did not apply to prevent the later

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    127 views1 page

    Macahilig vs. Magalit

    Uploaded by

    fina_ong6259
    The case involves a disputed lot of land that was subject to competing fishpond applications. Both the petitioner and respondents claimed rights over the occupied land. Government agencies previously ruled the lot belonged to the respondents. The petitioner appealed but their petitions were denied. The respondents then sought a writ of execution to gain possession, but the petitioner refused to vacate. The trial court initially ruled it had no jurisdiction, but later ordered the petitioner to vacate when the respondents filed contempt charges for refusing to leave. The petitioner claimed the initial ruling barred further orders, but the court found the first was an interlocutory order as it did not decide the merits, only a technical point. As such, res judicata did not apply to prevent the later

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    MELINA P. MACAHILIG, petitioner, MAGALIT, respondents. G.R. No. 141423. November 15, 2000 PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.

    FACTS:

    vs. the

    Heirs

    of

    GRACE

    M.

    The case is about the Lot 4417, which had an area of 2.0805 hectares and was subject of the fishpond application of Pepito Magalit, now represented by his heirs. Both the petitioners and the respondent are claiming rights over the land, which is occupied by Macahilig. The BFAR, as well as the Secretary of Agriculture and the Office of the President adjudged that that lot belongs to Magalit and that the denial of the petition of Macahilig is final. Macahilig still proceeded with the Court of Appeals and filed Petition for Review with Prayer for an Issuance of a Writ of Injunction and/or Restraining Order, which was again denied. This now prompt Magalit to institute a civil case for the issuance of writ of execution. Dr. Magalit contended that the Writ of Execution was not satisfied, because the spouses had refused to give up the fishpond in question. However, on September 17, 1992 the RTC held that its court has no jurisdiction over her claim. Instead of appealing, Magalit just filed a Petition for Contempt against Melina Macahilig because of the continuous refusal to turn over the land. On June 18, 1993, the court granted the relief of Magalit and ordered Macahilig to vacate the premises of the land. Petitioner now claims that the September 17, 1992 bars the subsequent order of the court on June 18, 1993 since Magalit did not appeal the first case hence, become final. ISSUE: Did the September 17, 1992 Order constitute res adjudicata barring the June 18, 1993 Orders of the trial court? HELD: NO. In this case, the court ruled that the September 17, 1992 is an interlocutory order as the judgment is not rendered on its merits but only on the technical point. A judgment or an order on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is upheld, as distinguished from an order rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point. An interlocutory order cannot give rise to res judicata. Only a final and unappealable judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction can effectively bar another action that has identical parties, subject matter and cause of action as the prior one.

    You might also like