Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. ABRAHAM B. BORRETA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171095 2015-06-22	MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS v. FORTUNATO CAJUCOM PERALTA, J.
(1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; (2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust; (3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution; (4) it appears that the controversy has been submitted to the judgment of the court; (5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or (6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.[51]
	GR No. 173634 2010-07-22	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. RUFINO G. AUMENTADO CARPIO, J.
6. It appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ issued without authority.[16]
	GR No. 181274 2010-06-23	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the parallel case of Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) v. Borreta,[25] Benedicto Carantes invoked CAR-CALC-022, the same CALC invoked by respondents in this case, to put up structures in the land subject of said case. The Court, speaking through Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, refused to recall the writ of demolition issued by the trial court therein. We held that Carantes is a mere applicant for the issuance of a certificate of ownership of an ancestral land who has yet to acquire a vested right as owner thereof so as to exclude the land from the areas under PEZA. We perceive no good reason to depart from this ruling as we find respondents herein to be similarly situated.