Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    Villareal Vs MWSS

    Uploaded by

    Honey Joy MB
    This case involved a judgment in favor of MWSS directing Villareal to vacate a property. MWSS filed a motion for a writ of execution within 5 years as required, but the court did not actually issue the writ until over 10 years later. The RTC dismissed Villareal's challenge, but the Supreme Court held that the RTC erred because jurisprudence requires that for a valid execution by motion, the judgment creditor must file the motion and the court must issue the writ, both within the 5 year prescriptive period according to Section 6, Rule 39. Here, while MWSS filed on time, the court failed to issue the writ within 5 years as required.

    Copyright:

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

    Villareal Vs MWSS

    Uploaded by

    Honey Joy MB
    137 views2 pages
    This case involved a judgment in favor of MWSS directing Villareal to vacate a property. MWSS filed a motion for a writ of execution within 5 years as required, but the court did not actually issue the writ until over 10 years later. The RTC dismissed Villareal's challenge, but the Supreme Court held that the RTC erred because jurisprudence requires that for a valid execution by motion, the judgment creditor must file the motion and the court must issue the writ, both within the 5 year prescriptive period according to Section 6, Rule 39. Here, while MWSS filed on time, the court failed to issue the writ within 5 years as required.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law Rule 39 Digest

    Original Title

    Villareal vs MWSS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a judgment in favor of MWSS directing Villareal to vacate a property. MWSS filed a motion for a writ of execution within 5 years as required, but the court did not actually issue the writ until over 10 years later. The RTC dismissed Villareal's challenge, but the Supreme Court held that the RTC erred because jurisprudence requires that for a valid execution by motion, the judgment creditor must file the motion and the court must issue the writ, both within the 5 year prescriptive period according to Section 6, Rule 39. Here, while MWSS filed on time, the court failed to issue the writ within 5 years as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    137 views2 pages

    Villareal Vs MWSS

    Uploaded by

    Honey Joy MB
    This case involved a judgment in favor of MWSS directing Villareal to vacate a property. MWSS filed a motion for a writ of execution within 5 years as required, but the court did not actually issue the writ until over 10 years later. The RTC dismissed Villareal's challenge, but the Supreme Court held that the RTC erred because jurisprudence requires that for a valid execution by motion, the judgment creditor must file the motion and the court must issue the writ, both within the 5 year prescriptive period according to Section 6, Rule 39. Here, while MWSS filed on time, the court failed to issue the writ within 5 years as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Villareal vs.

    MWSS

    This case arose from a judgment rendered in favor of MWSS directing the petitioners to vacate
    from the property in consideration. The judgment became final and executory on December 15,
    2002. MWSS filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with the MeTC on May 17, 2004.

    Villareal filed his Comment/Opposition,  praying that the motion be held in abeyance pending
    compliance by MWSS with the provision of Section 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, also
    known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.

    More than 10 years from the filing of MWSS' motion for execution or on July 28, 2014, the
    MeTC issued an Order granting the motion.

    On October 26, 2015, the MeTC issued a Writ of Execution, for the satisfaction of the RTC
    Decision dated September 27, 2002. On April 20, 2016, Daniel A. Villareal, Jr. (on behalf of
    Orlando), filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the RTC , challenging the Writ of
    Execution dated October 26, 2015 and the Sheriffs Notice to Vacate and Pay dated April 19,
    2016. He argued that the five-year period under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules was violated
    since the execution was done more than 10 years from the finality of the RTC decision.

    Issue: Whether or not the [RTC] erred in dismissing the petition based on erroneous application
    of rule 39, section 6 of the rules of court and apparent ignorance of applicable jurisprudence.

    Held:
    Yes, it did.

    By jurisprudence, for execution by motion to be valid, the judgment creditor must ensure the
    accomplishment of two acts within the five-year prescriptive period, as follows: (a) the filing of
    the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution; and (b) the court's actual issuance of the
    writ.

    Here, MWSS filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution of the RTC Decision on May 17,
    2004. This is within five years from December 15, 2002 - the date when the decision became
    final and executory. Thus, the first act was accomplished.

    As can be gleaned from Olongapo City v. Subic Water and Sewerage Co, Inc., the five-year
    prescriptive period reckoned from the entry of judgment mentioned in Section 6, Rule 39 of the
    Rules, should be observed both by the winning party who filed the motion, i.e., judgment
    obligee/creditor, and the court that will resolve the same. Simply put, the winning party may
    file the motion for execution within the five-year period; and the court should issue the actual
    writ of execution pursuant to the motion within the same period. After the lapse of the five-
    year period, any writ issued by the court is already null and void, since the court no longer has
    jurisdiction over the issuance of the writ.
    Records show that after the filing of MWSS' Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, and
    Orlando's Comment/Opposition thereto, the MeTC issued an Order granting the said motion
    only on July 28, 2014. More than a year after the grant, or on October 26, 2015, the MeTC
    issued the Writ of Execution.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy