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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 135 views

    GR No. L-17898 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Raym Trabajo
    The petitioner defaulted on payments for sawmill machinery and equipment he purchased, prompting foreclosure proceedings by the respondent company. The parties later agreed to a compromise in open court on January 28, 1959. However, the petitioner was not served the written and signed judgment until September 25, 1959, after a writ of execution had already been acted upon on September 23, 1959 and the machinery sold on December 4, 1959. The Supreme Court ruled the oral pronouncement of judgment on January 28, 1959 did not constitute valid notice to the petitioner, as Philippine law requires judgments to be in writing, personally prepared and signed by the judge. Therefore, the writ of execution and subsequent sale were deemed null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    GR No. L-17898 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Raym Trabajo
    135 views1 page
    The petitioner defaulted on payments for sawmill machinery and equipment he purchased, prompting foreclosure proceedings by the respondent company. The parties later agreed to a compromise in open court on January 28, 1959. However, the petitioner was not served the written and signed judgment until September 25, 1959, after a writ of execution had already been acted upon on September 23, 1959 and the machinery sold on December 4, 1959. The Supreme Court ruled the oral pronouncement of judgment on January 28, 1959 did not constitute valid notice to the petitioner, as Philippine law requires judgments to be in writing, personally prepared and signed by the judge. Therefore, the writ of execution and subsequent sale were deemed null and void.

    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 petitioner defaulted on payments for sawmill machinery and equipment he purchased, prompting foreclosure proceedings by the respondent company. The parties later agreed to a compromise in open court on January 28, 1959. However, the petitioner was not served the written and signed judgment until September 25, 1959, after a writ of execution had already been acted upon on September 23, 1959 and the machinery sold on December 4, 1959. The Supreme Court ruled the oral pronouncement of judgment on January 28, 1959 did not constitute valid notice to the petitioner, as Philippine law requires judgments to be in writing, personally prepared and signed by the judge. Therefore, the writ of execution and subsequent sale were deemed null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    GR No. L-17898 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Raym Trabajo
    The petitioner defaulted on payments for sawmill machinery and equipment he purchased, prompting foreclosure proceedings by the respondent company. The parties later agreed to a compromise in open court on January 28, 1959. However, the petitioner was not served the written and signed judgment until September 25, 1959, after a writ of execution had already been acted upon on September 23, 1959 and the machinery sold on December 4, 1959. The Supreme Court ruled the oral pronouncement of judgment on January 28, 1959 did not constitute valid notice to the petitioner, as Philippine law requires judgments to be in writing, personally prepared and signed by the judge. Therefore, the writ of execution and subsequent sale were deemed null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-17898            October 31, 1962

    PASTOR D. AGO, petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
    Agusan, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF SURIGAO and GRACE PARK ENGINEERING, INC., respondents.

    FACTS:

    In 1957, petitioner Pastor D. Ago bought sawmill machineries and equipment from respondent Grace
    Park Engineer domineering, Inc.

    In 1958, petitioner defaulted his payment which prompted respondent to institute extrajudicial
    foreclosure proceedings of the mortgage. On January 28, 1959, both parties came up with a compromise
    agreement which was then dictated in a decision in an open court by Hon. Montano A. Ortiz, Judge of
    the Court of First Instance of Agusan.

    On Aug. 15, 1959, a motion of execution was granted due to the petitioner’s default in his payments. A
    writ of execution later on followed on Sept. 23, 1959. The writ of execution has been acted upon but the
    machineries were already sold by the petitioner on February 16, 1959 long before levy by the sheriff.

    On December 1, 1959 petitioner filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
    injunction with respondent Court of Appeals to prevent the public auction sale on December 4, 1959
    contending that it is null and void since he only received the judgment given in open court on
    September 25, 1959, two days after the writ of execution has been acted. The sale pushed through and
    respondent Grace Park Engineering, Inc. acquired the property even with a void writ of execution and
    even without prior publication of the notice of sale. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals dismissed
    petitioner’s petition for certiorari and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction and contended that
    petitioner has been notified of the court’s judgment because he was around when the judgment has
    been announced in the open court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the order dictated in open court of the judgment of the court, and is the fact the
    petitioner herein was present in open court was the judgment was dictated, sufficient notice thereof.

    HELD:

    No. The order dictated in open court of the judgment of the court, and is the fact the petitioner herein
    was present in open court was the judgment was dictated, sufficient notice thereof since as stated in
    Section 1 of Rule 35:

    SECTION 1. How judgment rendered. — All judgments determining the merits of cases shall be in writing
    personally and directly prepared by the judge, and signed by him, stating clearly and distinctly the facts
    and the law on which it is based, filed with the clerk of the court.

    The mere pronouncement of the decision on January 28, 1959 does not make the judgment valid since
    the petitioner did not yet receive the written and signed judgment.

    Thus, the signed judgment which the petitioner received on September 25, 1959 makes the writ of
    execution which was acted on September 23, 1959 and the sale on December 4, 1959 null and void.

    You might also like