Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Briones Vasquez vs. CA, Rule39, p2, Newoutln

Briones Vasquez vs. CA, Rule39, p2, Newoutln

Ratings: (0)|Views: 383|Likes:
Published by cmv mendoza

More info:

Published by: cmv mendoza on Dec 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/31/2011

pdf

text

original

 
LUISA BRIONES-VASQUEZ, VS. CA AND HEIRS OF MARIA MENDOZA VDA. DEOCAMPO 00 00 SCRA 00AZCUNA, February 4, 2005
NATURE
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39025, dated June 9, 2000, which denied petitioner’s motion for clarificatory judgment and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated August 3, 2000, which denied the motion forreconsideration.
FACTS
-Under an agreement denominated as a pacto de retro sale, Maria Mendoza Vda. De Ocampo acquired aparcel of land from Luisa Briones. The latter thereunder reserved the right to repurchase the parcel of land up to December 31, 1970.-Maria Mendoza Vda. De Ocampo passed away on May 27, 1979. On June 14, 1990, Hipolita OcampoPaulite and Eusebio Mendoza Ocampo, the heirs of Maria Mendoza Vda. De Ocampo, filed a
PETITION
 
FOR
 
CONSOLIDATION
 
OF
 
OWNERSHIP
, alleging that the seller was not able to exercise her privilege to redeem theproperty on or before December 31, 1970.-REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) January 30, 1992: exh. “A “ is a true pacto de retro sale and that thedefendant can still redeem the property within 30 days from the finality of this judgment, subject to theprovisions of Art. 1616 of the New Civil Code;-COURT OF APPEALS (June 29, 1995): set aside the decision; and declaring the 1970 sale with right of repurchase, Exhibit “A,” as one of an equitable mortgage.-Respondents HEIRS OF VDA. DE OCAMPO filed a
MOTION
 
FOR
 
RECONSIDERATION
which the Court of Appeals deniedthrough a Resolution,[9] dated December 15, 1995. The Court of Appeals Decision became final andexecutory and entry of judgment was made on July 17, 1996.[-Subsequently, at the RTC, both Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ and Respondents HEIRS OF VDA. DEOCAMPO filed their respective motions for a writ of execution. The RTC issued a writ of execution.However, the writ was returned unserved-Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ thereafter filed a motion for an alias writ of execution. This was granted bythe RTC. The Sheriff was unable to effect the satisfaction of the alias writ as stated in the sheriff’s report.-Unable to effect the execution of the Court of Appeals decision, Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ filed withthe RTC an
OMNIBUS
 
MOTION
, dated May 25, 1999, praying that the
DECLARATION
 
OF
 
EQUITABLE
 
MORTGAGE
, Exhibit “A”, bedischarged; directing the issuance of a Writ of Possession against the plaintiffs for the delivery of possession of the land in question to the defendant.-The RTC denied the omnibus motion in an Order dated November 16, 1999, considering that the decisionof the Court of Appeals has become final and executory, hence, it can no longer alter, modify or addanything thereto, the prayers set forth in the omnibus motion.-Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ filed a
MOTION
 
FOR
 
RECONSIDERATION
which was denied by the RTC in an Orderdated February 23, 2000.-Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ then filed a
MOTION
 
FOR
 
CLARIFICATORY
 
 JUDGMENT
, dated April 5, 2000, with the Courtof Appeals. The motion was denied in a Resolution, dated June 9, 2000 since to the mind of the court therewas nothing more to clarify.-Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ filed a
MOTION
 
FOR
 
RECONSIDERATION
of the above Resolution. The Court of Appealsdenied the same in a Resolution dated August 3, 2000.
ISSUE
WON the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in refusingto grant Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ’s motion for clarificatory judgment.
HELD
NO
RULE 39, GEN PRINCIPLE: FINAL JUDGMENT ONCE EXECUTORY BECOMES IMMUTABLE
-The Decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory at the time that the motionfor clarificatory judgment was filed. With regards to final judgments, this Court has pronounced in
NUNALVS. CA
(1993) citing
Manning Intl Corp vs. NLRC
(1991) that:… nothing is more settled in the law than that when a final judgment becomes executory, it therebybecomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if themodification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, andregardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highestCourt of the land.-In the said case, the Court held that the general rule is that final and executory judgments are immutableand unalterable except under the three exceptions named above:a) clerical errors;b) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; andc) void judgments.
NUN PRO TUNC JUDGMENTS AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->