ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143075. June 14, 2000]

CHUA KENG GIAP vs. SY KAO, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 143075 (Chua Keng Giap vs. Sy Kao and Chua Lian King.)

Petitioner seeks to set aside the decision dated November 23, 1999 and the resolution dated April 25, 2000 of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner was the defendant in Civil Case No. 833 filed by herein respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas concerning a certain parcel of land. During the pendency of the case, petitioner transferred by way of a deed of sale said property. Subsequently, the case was decided by the lower court in favor of petitioner. Upon appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed. Petitioner, thus, appealed to this Court but his appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time. Thereafter, respondents filed a motion for execution which was heard on February 23, 1998, during which, only respondents' counsel was present. Neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Hence, the lower court granted respondents' motion for execution in its Order dated February 23, 1998. The Court of Appeals then denied petitioner's petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition which we find devoid of merit.

At the outset, this Court takes note of the fact that the instant petition did not attach the original or the certified true copy of the assailed Resolution dated April 25, 2000, pursuant to Rule 45.4.d. and 5 in relation to Rule 56.5d of the Rules of Court.

Further, Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides that execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding, upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. It is basic that when a judgment or order becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue a writ of execution (Rodriguez vs. Project 6 Market Service Cooperative, Inc., 247 SCRA 528 [1995]). The Court finds the petition to be a mere dilatory attempt to stall the execution of a final and executory decision.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE