This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| That a judgment should be implemented according to the terms of its dispositive portion is a long and well-established rule.[16] Otherwise stated, it is the dispositive portion that categorically states the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute as against each other.[17] Thus, it is the dispositive portion which the entities charged with the execution of a final judgment that must be enforced to ensure the validity of the execution.[18] | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All told, it is too late in the day for petitioners to raise this issue. Without doubt, the instant case where the family home issue has been vigorously pursued by petitioners is but a clear-cut ploy meant to forestall the enforcement of an otherwise final and executory decision. The execution of a final judgment is a matter of right on the part of the prevailing party whose implementation is mandatory and ministerial on the court or tribunal issuing the judgment.[30] | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is thus beyond dispute that the judgment in Civil Case Nos. 1291 and 4647 had already attained finality. The special order of demolition was issued by respondent judge so that the final judgment could be fully implemented and executed, in accordance with the principle that the execution of a final judgment is a matter of right on the part of the prevailing party, and mandatory and ministerial on the part of the court or tribunal issuing the judgment.[25] To be sure, it is essential to the effective administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[26] | |||||