This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Possession is an essential attribute of ownership.[25] Whoever owns the property has the right to possess it.[26] Adjudication of ownership includes the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of her rejected claim of ownership.[27] In Nazareno v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court affirmed the writ of execution awarding possession of land, notwithstanding that the decision sought to be executed did not direct the delivery of the possession of the land to the winning parties. Citing Perez v. Evite,[29] the Court stated that: A case in point is Perez v. Evite wherein the lower court declared Evite as owner of the disputed land. When the judgment became final and executory, Evite moved for the issuance of a writ of execution which the trial court granted. Perez moved to quash the writ arguing that the writ was at variance with the decision as the decision sought to be executed merely declared Evite owner of the property and did not order its delivery to him. Perez argued citing the cases of Jabon v. Alo and Talens v. Garcia which held that adjudication of ownership of the land did not include possession thereof. In resolving in favor of Evite this Court held | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| A writ of execution must conform to the judgment to be executed[22] and adhere strictly to the very essential particulars.[23] An order of execution, which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[24] The writ of execution "may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life, and in fact exceeds it, has pro tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law."[25] Having attained finality, the decision in G. R. No. 106063 is beyond review or modification even by the Supreme Court.[26] | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| A writ of execution must conform to the judgment to be executed[22] and adhere strictly to the very essential particulars.[23] An order of execution, which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[24] The writ of execution "may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life, and in fact exceeds it, has pro tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law."[25] Having attained finality, the decision in G. R. No. 106063 is beyond review or modification even by the Supreme Court.[26] | |||||