The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review and affirming the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had correctly ruled that the petitioners filed the wrong remedy of a petition for review instead of a petition for certiorari to challenge orders related to a writ of execution. As the orders pertained to execution and not appealable, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown, certiorari was not warranted. The dismissal of the case had become final, so execution was a matter of right.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review and affirming the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had correctly ruled that the petitioners filed the wrong remedy of a petition for review instead of a petition for certiorari to challenge orders related to a writ of execution. As the orders pertained to execution and not appealable, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown, certiorari was not warranted. The dismissal of the case had become final, so execution was a matter of right.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review and affirming the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had correctly ruled that the petitioners filed the wrong remedy of a petition for review instead of a petition for certiorari to challenge orders related to a writ of execution. As the orders pertained to execution and not appealable, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown, certiorari was not warranted. The dismissal of the case had become final, so execution was a matter of right.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review and affirming the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had correctly ruled that the petitioners filed the wrong remedy of a petition for review instead of a petition for certiorari to challenge orders related to a writ of execution. As the orders pertained to execution and not appealable, and no grave abuse of discretion was shown, certiorari was not warranted. The dismissal of the case had become final, so execution was a matter of right.
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 July 2021 which reads asfr,_llows:
''G.R. No. 256449 (Yu Dy Lee Sy, joined by her husband Patrick Chung, doing business under the name and style 'Habest Marketing' rep. by its Gen. Manager: Lindbergh Yu Chung v. Nestor Tanzo, Teresita Tanzo, Michael Tanzo, et al.). - The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners Yu Dy Lee and Patrick Chung's (petitioners) motion for extension I of fifteen ( I 5) clays from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated September 19, 2019 3 and February 8, 2021 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158121 for failure of petitioners to show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing their petition.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners availed of the wrong remedy when it filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court to assail the Orders dated August 15, 20185 and October 4, 20186 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 193 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 05-1061-MK (assailed Orders). Notably, the assailed Orders pertain to the issuance of a writ of execution with respect to the dismissal of the main case as to respondents Tommy and Myrna Tanzo (respondents), as well as the directive to petitioners to return Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-33702 to the former. However, no appeal may be taken from an order of execution; instead, petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 7 In this regard, petitioners' argument that the CA
Rollo, pp. 3-4.
Id. at 38-62. Id. at I 0-17. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring. 4 Id. at 3 1-36. Id. at I I 4-1 15. Penned by Judge A lice C. Gutierrez. Id. at 116. Section I of Rul e 41 of Rules of Court provides: SECTION I. Subject of Appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that complete ly disposes of the case, or of a pai1icular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: xxxx
should have treated its petition as a special civil action of cerliorari under Rule 65 deserves scant consideration. The petitioners do not ascribe any action on the part of the RTC constituting grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the writ of execution. Rather, they are indirectly assailing the correctness of the basis thereof, i.e., the final and executory decision of the RTC with respect to respondents. It is axiomatic that certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. 8 It is undisputed that after petitioners' motion for partial reconsideration9 of the main decision was denied by the RTC in its Order 10 dated May 7, 2018, petitioners no longer filed a Notice of Appeal to question the same. Hence, the dismissal of the case with respect to respondents had already become final and executory. 'It is settled that a decision becomes final as against a party who does not appeal the same.' 11 Once a judgment has been rendered final and executory from the expiration of the period to appeal, execution becomes a matter of right. 12 Hence, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's Order dated August 15, 2018 issuing the writ of execution in this instance.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., J, designated additional member per Special
Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
!erk of Court !Jj}Jj,
g/,
(e) An order of execution;
XX X ~: !n any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65. See Ba/ayan v. Acorda, 523 Phil. 305 , 309 (2006). 1 > Rollo, pp. 149-1 53. 10 Id. at 158-159. 11 WT Construction, Inc., v. The Province o/Cebu, 769 Phil. 848, 859-860 (20 I 5). 12 Section 1, Rule 39 ofthe Rules of Court provides: SECTION 1. Execlllion upon Judgments or Final Orders. - Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a _judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of o rigin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judg ment or judgments or final o rder or orders soug ht to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appe llate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution .
(118)URES Resolution -3- G.R. No. 256449 July 12, 2021
MARBIBI AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE (reg)
Counsel for Petitioners No. 12 Olive St., Dona Manuela Subd. I Pamplona Tres, Las Pifias City
ATTY. JOHN ALBINO C. ACHAS (reg)
Counsel for Respondents Ana Yap, et al. 724-F, Tandem Bldg., Quirino Ave. Malate, I 004 Manila
ATTY. ROLANDO K. JAVIER (reg)
Counsel for Respondents Michael, Teresita, Nestor Tanzo Unit 1807, I 8 th Floor, West Trade Center No. 132 West Ave., 1100 Quezon City
ATTY. FERNANDO DIALOGO (reg)
Counsel for Respondents Tommy & Myrna Tanzo Beverly Hills St., Baldovino Subd. 4600 Daet, Camarines No1te
HON. PRESlDING JUDGE (reg)
Regional Trial Court, Branch 193 Marikina City (Civil Case No. 2005-1061-MK)
JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)
Supreme Court, Manila
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
LIBRARY SERVICES (x) [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
OFFICE OF THE REJ>ORTER (x) PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x) Supreme Cou1t, Manila
COURT OF APPEALS (x)
Ma. Orosa Street Ermita, 1000 Manila CA-G.R. SP No. 158121
Please notify tile Court of any change in Y~f.r address.
Civpro G.R. No. 157557 - Republic of The Philippines (Civil Aeronautics Dministration) v. Ramon Yu, Et Al. - March 2006 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
