Case Summary (G.R. No. 22041)
Background of the Case
The case originates from a Complaint for Reconveyance Based on Constructive Trust with Preliminary Injunction filed by the petitioners against China Banking Corporation on September 10, 1973, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 91880. The respondent SMWI was later impleaded as the buyer of the disputed property. The trial court issued a decision on December 2, 1977, favoring the respondents by dismissing the petitioners' complaint and granting possession of the subject properties to SMWI.
Orders and Appeals
Following the trial court's decision, both the petitioners and SMWI filed notices of appeal. The appeal process included several motions, including one for a writ of execution pending appeal and subsequent motions addressing the amount of the supersedeas bond, which the petitioners contested. Despite the numerous legal maneuvers, including a certiorari petition filed by the petitioners with the Court of Appeals, the originally rendered decision was upheld.
Execution of Judgment
Years later, on October 28, 1991, the trial court granted an alias writ of execution based on the finality of the December 1977 decision, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The respondents made multiple motions to execute this judgment, citing the prolonged delay due to the actions of the petitioners, who sought additional legal remedies to hinder the execution.
Break-Open Order and Subsequent Petition
On July 12, 1994, the trial court issued a Break-Open Order authorizing the sheriff to forcibly execute the writ of execution if necessary. The following day, the petitioner Joseph Cochingyan Jr. filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to stop the execution and the break-open order. However, the appellate court dismissed the petition due to procedural deficiencies.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners contended that the trial court erred by issuing the writ of execution and break-open order because their appeal was still pending. They argued that execution was stayed as they had posted a supersedeas bond and made rental payments. Additionally, they claimed the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case after the perfection of their appeal, rendering any orders issued thereafter invalid.
Respondents' Position
The respondents countered that the trial court acted properly in issuing the orders as the decision had become final, asserting that any further appeal by the petitioners had been abandoned due to inaction. They maintained that procedural inadequacies justified the dismissal of the petition for
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 22041)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (petitioner) against Hon. Regino T. Veridiano II, Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Branch 31, and Dominador Ong (respondents).
- The petition challenges the Resolution dated July 13, 1994, of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for certiorari regarding the validity of the Order dated June 17, 1994, from the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4.
- This Order granted the issuance of an alias writ of execution for a previous decision in Civil Case No. 91880 and a Break-Open Order dated July 12, 1994.
Background of the Case
- On September 10, 1973, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Reconveyance Based on Constructive Trust with Preliminary Injunction against China Banking Corporation, which later included Sunday Machine Works, Inc. (SMWI) as a respondent.
- The trial court issued a decision on December 2, 1977, dismissing the petitioners' complaint and ordering them to surrender possession of the property in question to SMWI.
- The decision also required the petitioners to account for and deliver rental payments to China Banking Corporation and awarded attorney's fees to both respondents.
Proceedings in the Lower Courts
- Following the trial court's decision, both the petitioners and respondent SMWI filed notices of appeal.
- The trial court granted a writ of execution pending appeal to the respondents, which led petitioners to file a certiorari petition with the Court of