Can you issue a preliminary injunction in a petition for relief application?

Or can you include in a

petition for relief an application for preliminary injunction? The answer is yes on the ground of
preservation of the rights of the parties. Yes you could apply for preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties.

Let us now move on to execution. Okay?

Still on CIR v Fortune Tobacco, the Court said the writ of execution cannot go beyond the
dispositive portion of the decision. Why? Because the writ only reproduces the dispositive portion.

Okay, next. Let us look us class this one. The case of Anama vs the Court of Appeals. Anong
nangyari dito class? This is a clear illustration of execution as a matter of right. Anama v Court of
Appeals. Anong nangyari dito? A Complaint for declaration of nullity was filed by Anama. RTC
dismissed the case and affirmed by the CA. Decision became final and executory. The notice of
execution was filed without a notice of hearing. A while ago, I discussed what? Rule 15, kailangan
mo ng notice of hearing for every motion noh. Ang nangyari dito, naging final and executory.
Nagfile siya ng execution pero without ano? Notice of hearing. Di syempre, binakbakan sya ng
kalaban nya. Bakit? Eh kabisado, kahit nga kayo kabisado nyo yan eh. Walang notice of hearing,
wala yan; a scrap of paper. Ganun ang ginawa. Anong sabi ng Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court said, every motion, that is correct, the ruling is every motion should contain the mandatory
requirements of Rule 15, sabi ng court. Issuance of a writ of execution is ministerial duty, judgment
being final and executory. So sinabi dito ng court, because a final and executory judgment is
ministerial kahit na wala yung 3-day notice rule. It doesn’t mean that the judgment cannot be
executed on. The 3-day notice rule is not absolute. It is not intended for the movant but in order
not to surprise the other party, sabi ng court.

Now, let us now move on to my next point. What are the grounds for the issuance of a
discretionary execution. Ayan, discretionary execution, discretionary execution pending appeal.
Do you need a bond? You don’t need a bond. All you need is good reasons embodied in a special
order of the court. Take note of that. For a discretionary execution to be issued by the court, or to
be a discretionary execution application to be granted by the court, all you need are what? Good
reasons embodied in a special order of the court. Now, yung bond class, pwede yan, to what? To
stop a discretionary execution.

When can a judgment be revived by an independent action? A judgment, I mention this already,
this is in Section 6 of Rule 39.

What is your understanding of residual jurisdiction? Class, residual jurisdiction is that jurisdiction
that the court retains when it continues to be in possession of the records of the case. If it has
residual jurisdiction, it could act on an application of an indigent, it could act on execution pending
appeal application, okay. It could act on any application for the protection of the parties including
the compromise.

Can the trial court grant discretionary execution if the records have been elevated to the appellate
court? No. Papano siya aarte, wala na siyang records class. They cannot.

Now, to proceed further in the execution. Money judgment, how executed? This is Section 9 of
Rule 39. How is it executed class, once there is a money judgment? There are 3 ways. One is
payment of money to the judgment-obligee, garnishment or levy of real and personal property.
Now, can you go on levy a real and personal property? Can the sheriff go on to levy a real and
personal property, without demanding payment first? No. There should first be a demand for
payment before the sheriff could levy on real and personal property. That’s the case of PAL v
balber. (not sure with the case name)

Now, my next question is this. Specific acts Section 10. If the party who has been adjudged to
perform or do something refuses to do it, can he be held liable for contempt? The answer is no.
He cannot be held liable for contempt because the court can require someone else to perform or
the court can consider it as performed. Can a company invoked that it is exempt
from execution? Okay class, can a company say, exempt na po ako sa execution eh? Please
bear in mind that Section 13 of Rule 39 applies only to natural persons. It only applies to natural
persons. What is the duty of the court if there is claim that the property is exempt from execution?
Yung husgado, merong judgment na final and executory, ngayon, ie-execute na, merong nag-
claim before the court. Sabi nya, exempt po ako sa execution, exempt po ako. Should the court
believe the contention of the defendant or the losing party, judgment-obligor? The answer is no.
The duty of the court is to hear, scrutinize and determine if truly, that is truly, the properties are
exempt from execution. Failing to do so, if the court grants it, if it grants the execution and then,
ordered the same, the judgment is null and void. That is the duty of the court. The duty of the
court if there is a claim that a property is exempt from execution, the judge has to scrutinize and
determine if indeed the property is exempt from execution.

Against whom should execution proceed if judgment if the judgment-obligor dies? Kanino class
magpro-proceed if the judgment-obligor dies? Class, you have to distinguish this. Listen to this.
You have to know the nature of the judgment. Pag natanungan kayo sa bar nyan, tignan nyo yung
nature ng judgment Sir, bakit? If the judgment involves a property or an interest or lien theron, yo
proceed against the executor or administrator. But if the judgment is a money judgment, you
proceed to the estate.

Now, let us look at this. When is punitive damages imposable? Punitive damages is imposable
when a notice of sale has been removed or a sale is effected without a notice of sale.

What is terceria? Terceria is a third-party claim. Take note ha, listen, there are 3 provisions where
you will find a third-party claim: Rule 39, Section 16, Rule 57, Section 14, and Rule 60, Section 7,
yung isa attachment, yung isa replevin. Ito ang tandaan nyo, pag tinanungan kayo nyan, a third-
party claim works this way. If third-party claim serves an affidavit to the sheriff and to the judgment-
obligor, what is the effect? The execution is suspended as to that property where he has an
interest. Yun lang ang effect nun, basta nag-serve ng affidavit, suspended yan. Are we clear?
Titigil yan. Ngayon, pagkatigil nyan class, of course the judgment-obligee wants the execution to
continue, right? What should he do? He has to post a bond. Siya ngayon yung magpo-post ng
bond, in favor of the third-party claimant.

Now, next question. How can the judgment-obligee vindicate his right in a n execution under Rule
39? The judgment-obligee can vindicate his right in the same or in a separate action. The third-
party claimant can vindicate his right where? Only in a separate action. Because he can not
intervene anymore. Judgment is already final and executory and that is the greatest difference
between Rule 39 and Rule 57, attachment and replevin third-party claim. A third-party-claimant
can vindicate his right in a replevin, writ or in an attachment, where a writ of attachment or a writ
of replevin is issued when? In the same action he can intervene or in a separate action.

Can a personal property sold in execution be redeemed? The answer is no. Class, kapag personal
property na na public sale on execution, no redemption. Within what period can real property sold
on execution be redeemed by a judgment-obligor? Within one year and please remember this, in
relation to Rule 28, Section 28 and 29, the very moment the judgment-obligor redeems, no further
redemption. Kahit nagbenta ngayon, bukas nya ni-redeem, walang redemption. Kahit sabihin mo,
sir, kawawa naman. They’re protected, don’t worry. They are just given option by the law to
redeem but they are protected because they have a lien. Their lien is not erased by the mere fact
that there is a purchase. The very moment the judgment-obligor redeems that is within one year,
no further redemption is allowed.

Now, the question is who is a redemptioner? A redemptioner is someone who is someone who is
not judgment-obligor, who is a creditor or is person who has an interest on the property subject
of the levy on execution.

My next question is this. You have to listen to this because my discussion now is in portions
wherein papano kung hindi maka-satisfy ng judgment? Now, because I said the word satisfaction,
when do you know that a judgment is fully satisfied? Number one, If the writ of execution has
been returned to the court, fully satisfied yun. Number two, when there is a written
acknowledgment by the judgment-obligee or his counsel. And number three, when there is an
endorsement on the face of the records of the case. Sabi nya, okay, fully satisfied, by the
judgment-obligee or his counsel.

Now, the question is this, what remedies are available to the purchaser who was not able to take
possession of the property because another person claims an interest? I will illustrate. Sumama
ka, public sale na yun. Nagbid ako, public sale na yun, anong nangyari? Nagbayad ako pero di
ko na-take possession yung property. Do you follow? Pag tinanong kayo ng ganitong question,
the applicable provision is Section 34 of Rule 39. What are your remedies? You can recover what
you paid for in the same action. You could recover it in a separate action. Or number three, you
can have the judgment revived in your own name. Do you follow, you can have the judgment in
your own name. You will step only in the shoes of the judgment-obligee.

Can the court order the judgment-obligor to pay by installments? Pwede ba yun? The answer is
yes, if after investigation, this is Section 40 of Rule 39, the court is convinced that there is sufficient
income to cover the needs of the family, the court may require you to pay by amortization
payment.

The next, class, is this, What can the court do if it discovers that the judgment-obligor has an
interest in the property as a mortgagor or mortgagee? This is Section 42 class. Anong gagawin
mo class kapag nalaman na the judgment-obligor has an interest in the property as a mortgagor
or mortgagee? If you read Section 42, it will tell you that as long as the property is within the
territorial jurisdiction where the action is taking place, a receiver can apply for the sale of the
property. Ibebenta yun so that the proceeds of which can be used to satisfy the judgment, nakuha
nyo yun. Let’s say may ibang lupa. Hinahabol yung obligor, may ibang lupa siya, yun pala eh ako
yung mortgagee nung lupa na yun or ako yung nagsangla, a receiver, if the property is within the
jurisdiction of the court, can apply that that property be sold and be used to satisfy the judgment.

Now the next question is a person is in custody, or a person claims an interest in the property of
the judgment-obligor. Yung property ng judgment-obligor hawak ko, very common yan nung mga
panahon ni Marcos. Hawak nila ngayon nung ine-exceute na sila Marcos, akin to ha, di ba ganun?
Hindi kanila to, akin to ha. Ganun yung example nun. What can the court do if the person or a
corporation claims an interest in the property adverse to the claims of the judgment-obligor? The
judgment-obligee will apply for the sale of the property in court. Hingi ka ng authority ni court for
the sale of the property because the person in possession or who claims an interest refuses to
surrender the property. Get an order in the court for the sale of the property.

My last discussion point is, before the break, is what is enforcement of a foreign judgment? How
do you contest a foreign judgment? What is enforcement of a foreign judgment? This is how it
works, class. There is a judgment obtained in court, in a foreign court. That judgment cannot be
automatically enforced in the Philippines. Hindi kilala ng Philippine law. Hindi kilala ng Phillippine
court. Sino ba yung judge na yun, di ba? Sino ba yung court na yun, di ba? Bat ako maniniwala
sayo na itong papel na ito pwede kong i-enforce, correct? So what should the winning party do?
The winning party should file in the Regional Trial Court a petition for enforcement of foreign
judgment. Kindly take note that in the case of Mijares vs. Ranada, you don’t need to re-litigate it
all over again; you don’t need to try the case all over again. All you need to establish is that foreign
court acted with its competent jurisdiction, that the parties have been duly notified, and there was
no collusion, there was no fraud, there was no mistake of fact and there was no mistake of law.
Do you follow?

Now, I think I will leave you this question for you to think about during the break, the question of
the Marcos burial because I’m discussing judgment and execution. The Marcos burial, yung
pagkakalibing ni Marcos. Was the family in correct, in burying Marcos, when it is still within the
reglementary period, before judgment became final and executory? Can they bury him? When
you look at the provision of the rules, nakalagay sa Rule 36 and this is the Supreme Court, its not
Rule 36, anong maga-apply, Rule 51 judgments. Judgment will become final and executory after
the end of the reglementary period, only then will the entry of judgment be issued. Pag iba sa
inyo, tinanong nun, ganun lang ang sagot. Wala pang entry of judgment eh. Hindi pa final and
executory. Do you follow? The factual antecedence of this is not a straightforward just case. They
have what? This case involves a provisional remedy. If you will recall, there is a petition and then,
the court immediately issued a temporary restraining order. Do you follow? To allow the parties
to argue their case. There was an oral argument and a TRO in the meantime. There being a TRO,
class, the case proceeded to the oral arguments until such time that the court rendered a
judgment, correct? May judgment na. In that judgment, the court lifted the temporary restraining
order. There is no temporary restraining order anymore for the reason that there is nothing that
prevents them from burying. That is a legal standpoint. Opinions may vary lalo na pag nakinig ka
sa t.v., parang lahat tama. Oo nga noh, oo nga noh. Akala mo sila lahat tama. Pero class, yung
yung rule eh, pag wala kang TRO, wala ka na. Wala ka na. Kasi kami pag humawak kami ng
kaso, kahit nung dun kami sa panalo o dun kami sa talo, pag nawala yung TRO, magkamot ka
na. Tutuluyan ng kalaban mo yan. Pag nawala yung TRO mo, magkamot ka na, wala na yan, kasi
class, there is nothing that stops you eh. Di mo sasabihin, kasi wala pa final and executory. This
is a different kind. This is not a straightforward decision. Pero kasi class pag minuddle mo yung
concepts, it makes sense di ba? Pero pwede mo ngang sabihin it is not in the nature that it is
executory di ba? Pwede nga rin na ganun di ba? Ang dami mong sagot na mabibigay. Pero
binibigay ko lang yan as perspective sa inyo. Pero pag tinanong naman sa bar yan, dahil wala
pang decision, tama lahat ng sagot nyo dyan. Depende kung gaano nyo kaganda isasagot. Pero
I tell you, kung ako sasagot dun, ganun ko sasagutin yun. Wala nang TRO eh. Hindi ang tanong
eh final and executory. Wala ka nang TRO eh. Kaya ka nga Tini-RO para hindi na gawin eh. Now,
when the TRO is lifted, no more.