This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We deem it highly relevant to point out that a supervening event is an exception to the execution as a matter of right of a final and immutable judgment rule, only if it directly affects the matter already litigated and settled, or substantially changes the rights or relations of the parties therein as to render the execution unjust, impossible or inequitable.[10] A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment became final and executory, or of new circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality, including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time.[11] In that event, the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution,[12] or he may move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event.[13] The party who alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should necessarily establish the facts by competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment. | |||||
|
2013-01-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| There is no dispute that at the time that respondent purchased Yap's rights over the subject property, petitioner's right of redemption as a mortgagor has not yet expired. It is settled that during the period of redemption, it cannot be said that the mortgagor is no longer the owner of the foreclosed property, since the rule up to now is that the right of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale is merely inchoate until after the period of redemption has expired without the right being exercised.[16] The title to land sold under mortgage foreclosure remains in the mortgagor or his grantee until the expiration of the redemption period and conveyance by the master's deed.[17] Indeed, the rule has always been that it is only upon the expiration of the redemption period, without the judgment debtor having made use of his right of redemption, that the ownership of the land sold becomes consolidated in the purchaser.[18] | |||||
|
2005-08-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The court may stay immediate execution of a judgment when supervening events, occurring subsequent to the judgment, bring about a material change in the situation of the parties.[18] To justify the stay of immediate execution, the supervening events must have a direct effect on the matter already litigated and settled.[19] Or, the supervening events must create a substantial change in the rights or relations of the parties which would render execution of a final judgment unjust, impossible or inequitable making it imperative to stay immediate execution in the interest of justice.[20] | |||||