CIVPRO Case Digest

OFELIA FAUNI REYES AND NOEL FAUNI REYES, PETITIONERS, VS.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., RESPONDENT.   
G.R. No. 180098
April 02, 2014
PONENTE: BRION, J.
FACTS:
Joseph Fauni took out two life insurance benefits from Insular Life, covered by
Insurance Policy Nos. A001440747 and A001440758, with a total face value of P8
Million, on September 9 and 16, 1998. On October 19, 1998, a charred body
belonging to a car owned by Joseph was found in Ternate, Cavite. His mother, Ofelia
and brother Noel, filed a claim for death benefits under the policy, which Insular
denied on the ground of Joseph’s alleged misrepresentation and concealment of
material facts in the application. Insular then filed a complaint for rescission of
insurance contracts before the RTC of Makati City, alleging that Joseph’s death was
not established by preponderance of evidence. Joseph also concealed that there was
a threat to his life, based on a sworn statement executed by Ofelia. Joseph also
engaged in a wagering scheme wherein he took out life insurance contracts despite
the threats to his life. He also concealed the fact that his salary was not P800,000.00
but a mere P38,453.00. The RTC, however, dismissed the case, giving weight and
credence to the testimony of NBI officials that the charred body was that of Joseph.
Insular appealed the case to the Court of Appeals in C.A. But Ofelia, citing her old
age, moved for issuance of writ of execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted
upon posting of a bond. Insular elevated the issuance by the RTC of writ of execution
pending appeal via petition for certiorari.
Meanwhile, the appeal filed by Insular on the main case was denied by the Court of
Appeals, and subsequently dismissed also by the Supreme Court in G.R. No.
189605. Entry of judgment was made on May 12, 2010.
The Court of Appeals, ruling in favour of Insular, granted the petition for certiorari
on the issue of the grant of writ of execution pending appeal by the RTC, citing that
“old age” as a ground for issuance of writ of execution pending appeal was a personal
ground which can only be invoked by Ofelia, not Noel. Thus, Ofelia and Noel
elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to writ of execution pending appeal.
HELD:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The petition has already been rendered moot
and academic with the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 189605.
The existence of an actual case or controversy is a condition precedent for the court’s
exercise of its power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists when there
is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties
that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution. In negative terms, a justiciable
controversy must neither be conjectural nor moot and academic. There must be a
definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who have
adverse legal interests. The reason is that the issue ceases to be justiciable when a
controversy becomes moot and academic; otherwise, the court would engage in
rendering an advisory opinion on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state
of facts. The disposition of the case would not have any practical use or value as
there is no actual substantial relief to which the applicant would be entitled to and
which would be negated by the dismissal or denial of the petition.
There is a final judgment when the court has adjudicated on the merits of the case or
has categorically determined the rights and obligations of the parties in the case. A
final judgment, once rendered, leaves nothing more to be done by the court.
Consequently, a final judgment also becomes executory by operation of law; it
becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal or
motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed or perfected. It becomes incumbent
for the clerk of court to enter in the book of entries the judgment and the date of
finality of the judgment shall also be deemed to be the date of the entry of
judgment.[4] Thereafter, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, and
the issuance of the writ becomes the court’s ministerial duty.
In the present case, the issue of the propriety of discretionary execution has already
been rendered moot and academic with our denial of Insular Life’s petition and
issuance of the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 189605. This means that our
affirmation of the lower courts’ rulings on the main case has become final and
executory. Consequently, the issue of whether the petitioners are entitled to
discretionary execution pending appeal no longer presents any justiciable
controversy. It becomes the RTC’s ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution in
favor of the petitioners who are now entitled to execution as a matter of right.
In relation to this, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a final and
executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five years from the
date of its entry. A judgment may also be enforced by action after the lapse of five
years and before it is barred by the statute of limitations. The revived judgment may
then be enforced by motion within five years from the date of its entry.

CIVPRO Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVPRO Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVPRO Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFELIA FAUNI REYES AND NOEL FAUNI REYES, PETITIONERS, VS.

THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 180098

April 02, 2014

You might also like