Case Summary (G.R. No. L-55035)
Overview of the Complaint
The petitioners, identifying themselves as "illiterate mountain people," alleged that they had been misled by the private respondents into signing documents they believed to be authorizations for a right of way for governmental purposes. Instead, the documents permitted the private respondents to explore and exploit mineral resources on the petitioners' lands. The petitioners sought the nullification of these documents asserting their signatures were obtained through fraudulent representations.
Initial Court Proceedings
The trial court rendered judgment on October 1, 1979, declaring the questioned documents null and void and holding the respondents liable for damages. The ruling was communicated to the private respondents' counsel, Atty. Romeo Gonzaga, whose wife received the decision on November 23, 1979. No timely appeal was filed by the private respondents, which allowed the petitioners to file a motion for a writ of execution on January 7, 1980.
Issues of Jurisdiction and Counsel Representation
After Judge Zosa was appointed to the Court of Appeals and the branch became vacant, a new lawyer for the private respondents, Atty. Ponciano H. Alivio, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the earlier decision was not final and executory due to insufficient service. The trial's new judge, Hon. Rafael T. Mendoza, heard this motion and on January 28, 1980, set aside the order for execution, which led to the petitioners seeking relief through certiorari and prohibition.
Validity of Service of Judgment
The Court found that service of judgment to Atty. Gonzaga's wife was valid, as she possessed enough discretion to receive notices on behalf of her husband. The Court underscored the obligation to serve notices to counsel at their registered address unless a formal notice of change of address was filed. The failure of Atty. Gonzaga to formally withdraw as counsel meant that service to him was effectively served to the clients.
Ruling on the Finality of Judgment
The decision of the trial court was deemed final and executory as no appeal was taken within the reglementary period. The prevailing legal principle holds that once a judgment becomes final, the grant of execution becomes a matter of right, imposing a ministerial duty on the court to execute the decision in favor of the prevailing party.
Conclusio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-55035)
Case Citation
- 205 Phil. 672
- G.R. No. 55035
- Date of Decision: February 23, 1983
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Genaro Cubar, Flora Cubar, Narciso Cubar, Cresencia Cubar, Rosalio Cubar, Petra T. Vda. de Cubar, Felomino Cubar, Fausto Cubar, et al.
- Respondents: Hon. Rafael T. Mendoza (Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI), Victoriano Enad, Rafael Enad, Simon Veloso, Erlinda Ponce
Nature of the Case
- Type: Special civil action of certiorari and prohibition with a writ of preliminary injunction.
- Objective: To annul and set aside the Order dated January 28, 1980, issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which set aside a prior Order for the issuance of a writ of execution.
Background of the Case
- On September 22, 1976, the petitioners filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, assigned to Branch V under Judge Mariano A. Zosa, as Civil Case No. R-15607.
- The complaint sought the nullification of documents that the petitioners, described as "illiterate mountain people," had signed, which they believed were permissions for a right of way for government road construction.
- They were misled by the defendants into signing documents that instead authorized private respondents to explore mineral resources on their land, resulting in permits granted by the Bureau of Mines for exploitation, excluding the petitioners from their land.
Proceedings in the Trial Court
- Private respondents denied the allegations, asserting that the petitioners had voluntarily executed the documents.
- After hearings, the trial court ruled on October 1, 1979, declaring the documents null and void and awarding damages to the petitioners.
- A copy o