Title
Alano vs. Court of 1st Instance of Bulacan
Case
G.R. No. L-14557
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1959
A group of petitioners seek to annul an order for the issuance of an alias writ of execution in a foreclosure case, claiming no deficiency judgment was rendered, but the court determines that the order was valid as it served as a deficiency judgment to satisfy the remaining balance.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14557)

Facts:

  • Respondent mortgagee, Miguel Campos, filed an ex-parte motion alleging that only a portion of the judgment amount had been satisfied through the sale of the mortgaged properties, leaving a balance unpaid.
  • Campos requested the issuance of an alias writ of execution to enforce the payment of the remaining balance.
  • The court granted the motion and issued the alias writ of execution.
  • Petitioners argue that there was no basis for the order since no deficiency judgment had been rendered in the foreclosure suit.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The order was valid and within the jurisdiction of the respondent court.
  • The order served as a deficiency judgment to satisfy the remaining balance.
  • The court concluded that there would have b...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The court held that the order was valid and within the jurisdiction of the respondent court.
  • Although the order did not explicitly declare the deficiency or the personal liability of the petitioners, it served as a deficiency judgment within the meaning of the rule.
  • The purpose of the writ was to satisfy the deficiency claimed by the respondent mortgagee.
  • The court concluded that there would have been no reason for the issuance of the writ if the alleged deficiency did not exist.

Another Issue:

  • Whether the petitioners regained their standing in court after the respondent mortgagee filed opposition and other pleadings.

Ruling:

  • The petitioners could not benefit from the waiver because the judgment had already been fully satisfied, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
  • The motion to set aside the alias writ could not be considered a petition for relief under the rules, as it was filed beyond the prescribed time.

Ratio:

  • The court held that the petitioners could not benefit from the waiver because the judgment had already been fully satisfied, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
  • The court also noted that the motion to set aside the alias writ could not be considered a petition for relief under the rules, as it was filed beyond the prescribed time.

Clarification:

  • The inh...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.