Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Primetown Property Vs Juntilla

    Uploaded by

    Shimi Fortuna
    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court do not apply to a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. These provisions only apply to litigated motions, not ex parte motions. A motion for a writ of possession is an ex parte motion as it is not litigated but rather informs the party that a writ of execution has not been implemented. As such, it does not require notice or a hearing, and the HLURB may grant the motion even without the judgment obligor present. The issuance of a writ of possession also does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Primetown Property Vs Juntilla

    Uploaded by

    Shimi Fortuna
    103 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court do not apply to a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. These provisions only apply to litigated motions, not ex parte motions. A motion for a writ of possession is an ex parte motion as it is not litigated but rather informs the party that a writ of execution has not been implemented. As such, it does not require notice or a hearing, and the HLURB may grant the motion even without the judgment obligor present. The issuance of a writ of possession also does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case.

    Original Title

    Primetown Property vs Juntilla

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court do not apply to a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. These provisions only apply to litigated motions, not ex parte motions. A motion for a writ of possession is an ex parte motion as it is not litigated but rather informs the party that a writ of execution has not been implemented. As such, it does not require notice or a hearing, and the HLURB may grant the motion even without the judgment obligor present. The issuance of a writ of possession also does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views1 page

    Primetown Property Vs Juntilla

    Uploaded by

    Shimi Fortuna
    The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court do not apply to a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. These provisions only apply to litigated motions, not ex parte motions. A motion for a writ of possession is an ex parte motion as it is not litigated but rather informs the party that a writ of execution has not been implemented. As such, it does not require notice or a hearing, and the HLURB may grant the motion even without the judgment obligor present. The issuance of a writ of possession also does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PRIMETOWN PROPERTY vs JUNTILLA Thus, it is well- settled that the procedure in a motion

    G.R. NO. 157801 | June 8, 2005 for the issuance of a writ of possession being summary
    SECOND DIVISION, J. Callejo, Sr. in nature provides a proceeding wherein relief is
    Digest by: Shekinah Mae Fortuna granted without an opportunity for the person against
    whom the relief is sought to be heard. The issuance of
    FACTS a writ of possession is not a judgment on the merits.

    Teresa Aguilar filed a motion for the issuance of writ of Therefore, the HLURB may grant the motion even in
    possession against Primetown Property Group Inc. the absence of the judgment obligor, herein PPGI.
    (PPGI) with the HLURB for a property which she
    acquired by virtue of a writ of execution. HLURB
    granted Aguilar’s motion.

    PPGI appealed the order of the HLURB granting


    Aguilar’s motion and sought for its reversal, averring
    that under Sec 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court,
    Aguilar was mandated to serve on it a copy of her
    motion for the issuance of a writ of possession at least
    three days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
    However, Aguilar failed to do so.

    ISSUE:

    WON the requirements under Sec 4 and 5 of Rule 14


    apply to the motion for the issuance of a writ of
    possession?

    RULING: NO.

    PPGI’s reliance on Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 under


    the Rules of Court was misplaced:

    Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for motions which


    the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of
    the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for
    hearing by the applicant.

    Every written motion required to be heard and the


    notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a
    manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at
    least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless
    the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter
    notice.

    Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall


    be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall
    specify the time and date of the hearing which must
    not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the
    motion.

    This is so because the aforecited provisions apply


    only to a litigated motion and not to an ex parte
    motion.

    The motion for the issuance of the writ of possession is


    an ex parte motion and thus does not need a notice
    of hearing nor a hearing per se, as it is not a litigated
    motion but only a mode to inform the party that the
    writ of execution has not yet been implemented.
    As the court puts it, there is no need for a hearing of
    such motion because it is not a litigated motion and
    that the court may act thereon causing no prejudice to
    the rights of the adverse party. The writ of
    possession is but an implementation of the writ of
    execution.

    You might also like