This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thus, a person not a party to the proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the judgment reviewed. [10] Stated differently, if a petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a party in the lower court, he has no standing to question the assailed order. [11] | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is clear from the above rule that a judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.[74] If the prevailing party fails to have the decision enforced by a mere motion after the lapse of five years from the date of its entry (or from the date it becomes final and executory), the said judgment is reduced to a mere right of action in favor of the person whom it favors and must be enforced, as are all ordinary actions, by the institution of a complaint in a regular form.[75] However, there are instances in which this Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years upon meritorious grounds.[76] In Lancita v. Magbanua,[77] the Court declared:In computing the time limited for suing out an execution, although there is authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there should not be included the time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of a party, or otherwise. Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will extend the time within which the writ may be issued without scire facias. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The issue raised by the petitioners pervade into the factual findings of the RTC and the appellate court.[26] It bears stressing that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is a matter of discretion.[27] The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact. When supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties, and are not reviewable by this Court unless the presence of any exceptional circumstances is established.[28] The petitioners failed to establish any of the exceptional circumstances which would warrant such review. | |||||