Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and as against defendants as follows: a) The plaintiffs are the true and lawful owners of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-139163. b) The defendants are directed to vacate immediately the land in suit which is covered and described in TCT No. T-139163, copy of the title is marked as Annex “A” of the complaint.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and as against defendants as follows: a) The plaintiffs are the true and lawful owners of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-139163. b) The defendants are directed to vacate immediately the land in suit which is covered and described in TCT No. T-139163, copy of the title is marked as Annex A of the complaint. c) The defendants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs the amount of P5,000.00 as attorneys fees. d) The defendants are ordered to pay the costs. [2] The petitioner appealed to the RTC. In the meantime, the Spouses Lopez moved for the execution of the decision pending appeal in the RTC, [3] alleging that the defendants had not filed a supersedeas bond to stay the execution. The Acbangs opposed the motion for execution pending appeal, [4] insisting that the failure of the Spouses Lopez to move for the execution in the MTC constituted a waiver of their right to the immediate execution; and that, therefore, there was nothing to stay, rendering the filing of the supersedeas bond unnecessary. In his assailed order dated March 31, 2004, Judge Luczon granted the motion for immediate execution, viz : The Motion for Execution is hereby granted, there being no Motion to Fix Supersedeas bond filed by [the Acbangs] as of the date of the filing of the Motion. The opposition of [the spouses Lopez] on the appeal taken by [the Acbangs] is hereby denied because under the rules the loosing [sic] party may appeal the case even if they did not post their supercedeas [sic] bond. [The spouses Lopez] then are given 15 days from today within which to file their memorandum and [the Acbangs] are also given similar period to file their reply on the memorandum of [the spouses Lopez]. Afterwhich (sic) the case shall be submitted for decision with or without the memorandum from the parties. SO ORDERED.
CHUA CHO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MARIANO C.
G.R. No. 113886 -
CaseG.R. NO. 151376 - FILOMENO G. GONZALES, P E T I T I O N E R, VS. QUIRINO G. GONZALES, REPRESENTED BY EUFEMIA GONZALES, R E S P O N D E N T.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 151376 -
CaseG.R. No. 142441 - PEDRO BONGALON NOW SUBSTITUTED BY FILIPINA BONGALON, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CECILIO BONGALON AND AMPARO BONGALON.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 142441 -