This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with petitioner's contention that the December 20, 2002 Order of the RTC granting the petition for a writ of possession is final. The remedy of respondents was to appeal to the CA by filing their notice of appeal within the period therefor.[62] Indeed, when the RTC denied on November 10, 2003 the motion of respondents to quash the writ the court had earlier issued, respondents appealed to the CA under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 81607. Respondents did not file a supplemental petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 75787. | |||||
|
2005-09-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The second issue raised by the petitioner is not novel. In GSIS v. Court of Appeals,[16] this Court discussed the inappropriateness of intervening in a summary proceeding under Section 7 of Act No. 3135:The proceedings in which respondent Knecht sought to intervene is an ex parte proceeding pursuant to Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, and, as pointed out by petitioner, is a "judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested (Stella vs. Mosele, 19 N.E., 2d. 433, 435, 299 III App. 53; Imbrought v. Parker, 83 N.E. 2d 42, 43, 336 III App. 124; City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Aavis Hotel Corporation, 280 III App. 247), x x x or a proceeding wherein relief is granted without an opportunity for the person against whom the relief is sought to be heard" (Restatement, Torts, S 674, p. 365, Rollo). | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| corresponding bond. The judge issuing the order following these express provisions of law cannot be charged with having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion."[16] Therefore, the issuance of the writ of possession being ministerial in character, the implementation of such writ by the sheriff is likewise ministerial. Petitioner blandly but jesuitically asserts that the period to appeal the trial court's decision granting the writ of possession had not yet lapsed since neither he nor his counsel received a copy of said decision. True, Section 3, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court | |||||