Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 728 views

    MOTION FOR EXECUTION-Pesimo

    Uploaded by

    Leo Archival Imperial
    1) The plaintiffs filed a motion for execution seeking to enforce a court decision ordering the defendants to vacate the subject property and pay monthly rent. 2) The court had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in their unlawful detainer case and denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. 3) Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, decisions in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory without prejudice to appeal. As such, the plaintiffs requested a writ of execution be issued.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MOTION FOR EXECUTION-Pesimo

    Uploaded by

    Leo Archival Imperial
    728 views4 pages
    1) The plaintiffs filed a motion for execution seeking to enforce a court decision ordering the defendants to vacate the subject property and pay monthly rent. 2) The court had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in their unlawful detainer case and denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. 3) Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, decisions in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory without prejudice to appeal. As such, the plaintiffs requested a writ of execution be issued.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The plaintiffs filed a motion for execution seeking to enforce a court decision ordering the defendants to vacate the subject property and pay monthly rent. 2) The court had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in their unlawful detainer case and denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. 3) Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, decisions in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory without prejudice to appeal. As such, the plaintiffs requested a writ of execution be issued.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    728 views4 pages

    MOTION FOR EXECUTION-Pesimo

    Uploaded by

    Leo Archival Imperial
    1) The plaintiffs filed a motion for execution seeking to enforce a court decision ordering the defendants to vacate the subject property and pay monthly rent. 2) The court had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in their unlawful detainer case and denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. 3) Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, decisions in unlawful detainer cases are immediately executory without prejudice to appeal. As such, the plaintiffs requested a writ of execution be issued.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Republic of the Philippines

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


    5th Judicial Region
    Branch 58
    San Jose, Camarines Sur

    Civil Case No. 2017-1333


    For: Unlawful Detainer plus Attorney’s
    Fees and Damages
    HEIRS OF SALVACION VALER
    represented by Salve C. Lim;
    Plaintiffs,

    -versus-

    JESUS PESIMO, JR, et.al


    Defendants.
    x----------------------------------------------------x

    MOTION FOR EXECUTION

    Plaintiffs, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court,


    respectfully state:

    1. That on July 18, 2018, the Honorable Court rendered a decision


    on the motion for reconsideration of the Defendants, ordering as
    follows:

    “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for


    reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit.”

    2. That said decision of the aforementioned motion necessarily


    reinforces the decision of the Honorable Court dated April 16, 2018,
    which ruled that:

    “The Defendants are hereby ordered:

    1. To vacate the property subject matter of this case,


    particularly Lot 2613 with an area of 13, 257 square meters more or
    less, covered by Tax Declaration No. 97-009-00542 situated at Brgy.
    Danlog, San Jose, Camarines Sur;
    1
    2. To pay the plaintiffs monthly rentals as compensation for the
    use of the property in the amount of P1.00 per square meter or Php
    6,640.00 per month to commence from the filing of this case until the
    defendants vacate the said property subject matter of this case”

    3. That under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure which


    includes cases of unlawful detainer, the decisions of the regional trial
    courts are immediately executory without prejudice to a further
    appeal that may be taken therefrom. This was further elaborated in
    the case of ALPA-PCM vs. Vincent Bulasao, et.al, G.R. No. 197124,
    dated March 19, 2012, which ruled that:

    “The Court reminds ALPA-PCM, particularly its counsel, Atty. Guillermo


    R. Bandonil, Jr., that this case originated from the complaint for unlawful
    detainer filed by the Bulasaos against it. Actions for unlawful detainer are
    governed primarily by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and
    suppletorily by the Rules of Court. Section 21 of the Revised Rules on
    Summary Procedure states that:
     
    Sec. 21. Appeal. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
    appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same in accordance
    with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional
    trial court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry
    and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice
    to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall
    be deemed repealed. [emphasis and underscoring ours]
     
     
    The above rule, without any qualification whatsoever, has decreed the
    immediately executory nature of decisions of the RTC rendered in the
    exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, involving cases falling under the
    Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. It requires no further
    justification or even good reasons for the RTC to authorize execution,
    even if an appeal has already been filed before the CA. Indeed, the
    provision does not even require a bond to be filed by the prevailing party to
    allow execution to proceed. The rationale for this is the objective of the
    Revised Rules on Summary Procedure to achieve an expeditious and
    inexpensive determination of cases governed by it. This objective provides
    the good reason that justifies immediate execution of the decision, if the
    standards of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on execution pending
    appeal, as what ALPA-PCM insists, are considered. (emphasis supplied)

    PRAYER

    2
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
    prayed that a Writ of Execution be issued in the above-captioned case
    as against the Defendants.
    Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

    Naga City for San Jose, Camarines Sur, Philippines,


    ______________.

    BY:

    LEO ARCHIVAL I. IMPERIAL


    Counsel for the Plaintiff
    Unit 2D, Prifel Bldg. J. Miranda Ave., Naga City
    ROLL NO. 60619-March 23, 2012
    IBP No. 030673- CY-2018
    PTR No. 7940071- January 4, 2018
    MCLE Compliance No. VI-0003390, October 12, 2017
    Tel No: 472-82-61/C.P. No: 09175126032

    NOTICE OF HEARING

    ATTY. JUDESSA MAE D. ADRALES


    Counsel for the Defendants

    Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for Execution shall be submitted
    for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Friday, August 17, 2018 at
    8:00 a.m or as soon as counsel and matter may be heard.

    ATTY. LEO ARCHIVAL I. IMPERIAL

    Copy Furnished: By Registered Mail

    ATTY. JUDESSA MAE D. ADRALES


    3
    Counsel for the Defendants
    Public Attorney’s Office
    San Jose, Camarines Sur

    Explanation: On account of the distance, time and personnel constraints in


    effecting personal service, counsel for the Defendants is constrained to serve a
    copy of the foregoing motion to Atty. Judessa Mae D. Adrales at her address
    above through registered mail as evidenced by hereto attached Registry Receipt
    No:__________.

    ATTY. LEO ARCHIVAL I. IMPERIAL

    You might also like