This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Needless to say, the failure of the Salazars to implead indispensable party defendants in the petition for cancellation of entries in OCT No. 40287 should have been a ground for the RTC to dismiss, or at least suspend, the proceedings of the case.[35] Yet, although the action proceeded, any judgment or order issued by the court thereon is still null and void for want of authority on the part of the court to act with respect to the parties never impleaded in the action.[36] Thus, the orders issued by said court dated October 21, 1986 and November 7, 1986 never acquired finality.[37] Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit.[38] | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Consequently, we rule that the COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the boundary dispute between San Jose del Monte and Caloocan City. We have consistently ruled that a judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void.[9] Such nullity is correctable only by certiorari.[10] And certiorari cannot be dismissed for timeliness inasmuch as a void judgment never acquires finality and any action to declare its nullity does not prescribe.[11] Having no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the position they were in before the trial.[12] | |||||
|
2005-02-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Interpreting the above rule, in Miranda vs. Carreon,[11] Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez vs. Court of Appeals,[12] and Roque, et al. vs. Delgado, et al.,[13] we held that where the petitioner (a public officer) ceases to be mayor, the appeal and/or action he initiated may be continued and maintained by his successor if there is substantial need to do so. If the successor failed to pursue the appeal and/or action, the same should be dismissed. | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| A void judgment never acquires finality.[30] Hence, while admittedly, the petitioner in the case at bar failed to appeal timely the aforementioned decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, it cannot be deemed to have become final and executory. In contemplation of law, that void decision is deemed nonexistent. Thus, there was no effective or operative judgment to appeal from. In Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System vs. Sison,[31] this Court held that:"xxx [A] void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. It, accordingly, leaves the parties litigants in the same position they were in before the trial."[32] Thus, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void: "x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."[33] | |||||