Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gutierrez Vs Valiente G.R. No. 166802, July 4, 2008 557 SCRA 211

    Uploaded by

    Graile Dela Cruz
    54 views1 page
    This case involved a boundary dispute between Gutierrez and Valiente over two lots they owned. A court order found that Gutierrez was occupying 99 square meters of Valiente's land. The court then ordered Gutierrez to reconvey that portion to Valiente. Gutierrez later filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, arguing the order exceeded the relief requested. The Supreme Court upheld the order, finding a motion to quash is only valid if any of several limited conditions apply, none of which were present in this case. The Court also noted that once a judgment is final, it can no longer be modified except to correct clerical errors.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    yummmn

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a boundary dispute between Gutierrez and Valiente over two lots they owned. A court order found that Gutierrez was occupying 99 square meters of Valiente's land. The court then ordered Gutierrez to reconvey that portion to Valiente. Gutierrez later filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, arguing the order exceeded the relief requested. The Supreme Court upheld the order, finding a motion to quash is only valid if any of several limited conditions apply, none of which were present in this case. The Court also noted that once a judgment is final, it can no longer be modified except to correct clerical errors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Gutierrez Vs Valiente G.R. No. 166802, July 4, 2008 557 SCRA 211

    Uploaded by

    Graile Dela Cruz
    This case involved a boundary dispute between Gutierrez and Valiente over two lots they owned. A court order found that Gutierrez was occupying 99 square meters of Valiente's land. The court then ordered Gutierrez to reconvey that portion to Valiente. Gutierrez later filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, arguing the order exceeded the relief requested. The Supreme Court upheld the order, finding a motion to quash is only valid if any of several limited conditions apply, none of which were present in this case. The Court also noted that once a judgment is final, it can no longer be modified except to correct clerical errors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gutierrez vs Valiente

    G.R. No. 166802, July 4, 2008


    557 SCRA 211
    The action involved a boundary dispute of two lots owned by Gutierrez and Valiente. A portion
    of the land of Valiente was allegedly encroached by Gutierrez. Valiente sued Gutierrez for quieting of
    title and recovery of possession. The court issued an order on May 15, 2000 for the relocation of the
    lots. The relocation survey revealed that Gutierrez was occupying a 99 sq. m. portion of the land of
    Valiente. The court issued an order on July 23, 2003 directing Gutierrez to reconvey to Valiente the
    portion of the land in question. Valiente moved for the execution of the order which the court granted.
    Sheriff gave notice to Gutierrez of the writ of execution. Gutierrez filed a motion to quash writ of
    execution on the ground that the reconveyance of the encroached portions exceeded the nature of
    reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
    ISSUE: Gutierrez questioned the validity of the orders.
    HELD: Same; Same; Execution; Instances where a motion to quash execution is proper. - A
    motion to quash execution is only proper where: (a) the writ of execution varies the judgment; (b) there
    has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust; (c) execution
    is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution; (d) it appears that the controversy
    has never been submitted to the judgment of the court; (e) the terms of the judgment are not clear
    enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or (f) it appears that the writ of execution has
    been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance or is issued against the wrong party, or
    that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. 1
    None of these instances apply here.
    Same; Same; Judgments; A judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and
    unalterable, hence, may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or
    mistakes. - A motion to quash execution and a petition for certiorari and prohibition, are not and should
    not be substitutes for a lost appeal.2 They are not procedural devises to deprive the winning party of the
    fruits of the judgment in his or her favor. Courts should frown upon any scheme to prolong litigations. A
    judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, hence, may no longer be
    modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. Once a judgment or order
    becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. 3

    1
    Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 294, 302 (1999); Limpin, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
    L-70987, January 30, 1987, 147 SCRA 516, 522-23.
    2
    Cf Conejos v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 849, 855 (2002); Del Mar v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 19, 30
    (2002).
    3
    Cf Salva v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 281, 294 (1999).

    You might also like