Balais-Mabanag vs. The Register of Deeds of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No.

153142 | March 29, 2010 FACTS: The petitioner did not raise any issue against Ramonas qualifications to own land in the Philippines during the trial or, at the latest, before the finality of the RTC judgment. HELD: The petitioner was thereby deemed to have waived the objection, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, to wit: Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived FACTS: The CA found that it was the petitioner who did not comply with the notice of the sheriff of the implementation of the judgment through the writ of execution;[24]and that her noncompliance then justified the RTCs order to the Branch Clerk of Court to execute the deed of absolute sale to implement the final judgment rendered in G. R. No. 103577. HELD: The fact that the petitioner and her counsel maneuvered to thwart, or, at least, to delay the inevitable execution of the judgment warranted the RTCs directing the Branch Clerk of Court execute the deed of absolute sale to implement the judgment. The RTCs effort to implement the judgment could not be stymied by the petitioners deliberate refusal to comply with the judgment. Such deliberate refusal called for the RTC to order the Branch Clerk of Court to execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of Ramona, which move of the trial court was precisely authorized by Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to wit: Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. (a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts; vesting title. If a judgment directs a party who execute a conveyance of land or personal property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act in connection therewith, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party. If real or personal property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may be an order divest the title of any party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. -oo0ooCRUZ vs.SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. Nos. 174599-609 | February 12, 2010 FACTS: This case is about a public prosecutors unilateral withdrawal of a motion to drop an accused from the information after a reinvestigation by his office found no probable cause against such accused and the effect of being relieved of liability in a tax case upon the accuseds criminal liability in a related case.

Sandiganbayan allowed respondent OSP to withdraw its earlier motion to drop petitioner Cruz from the criminal informations even after the OMB had approved such withdrawal on ground of lack of probable cause.

As it happened, the OMB found after reinvestigation that no probable cause existed against petitioner Cruz. Under the circumstances, this entitled Cruz to the dismissal of the charges against him. Unfortunately, acting with grave abuse of discretion, the Sandiganbayan ignored Cruzs right to such a dismissal. It simply allowed respondent OSP to withdraw its motion to drop Cruz from those charges even if the OSP made no claim that the state of evidence had changed after it submitted its memorandum. Having reached the above conclusion, the Court would ordinarily be satisfied with annulling the Sandiganbayans ruling that granted respondent OSPs motion to withdraw its application for the dropping of petitioner Cruz from the charges. And, as a result, the Court would then just direct the Sandiganbayan to pass upon the merits of the OSPs move to drop Cruz. But this Courts recent ruling in Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that Pilipinas Shell, of which petitioner Cruz was the responsible officer, was a transferee in good faith and for value of the same TCCs subject of the criminal casesraises the issue of whether or not such ruling bars the prosecution of Cruz in the criminal cases subject of this petition. ISSUE: What is the rule on res judicata? HELD: The res judicata rule bars the re-litigation of facts or issues that have once been settled by a court of law upon a final judgment on the merits. Section 47 (b) and (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court establishes two rules: (a) a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars the parties and their privies from bringing a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before either the same or any other tribunal; and (b) any right, fact or matter directly adjudged or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court that renders judgment on the merits is conclusively settled and cannot be litigated again between the parties and their privies, regardless of whether the claims, purposes or subject matters of the two suits are the same. The first is commonly referred to as "bar by former judgment"; the second as "conclusiveness of judgment." It is the second that is relevant to this case. Conclusiveness of judgment or auter action pendent ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised anew in any future case involving the same parties although for a different cause of action. Where the rule applies, there must be identity of issues but not necessarily identity in causes of action.

-oo0ooNATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION vs. MARIO ABAYARI, et al G.R. No. 166508 | October 2, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner insists that it is difficult not to consider the issuance of the DBM in this case as a supervening event that would make the execution of the trial courts decision inequitable and/or impossible, since the determination of entitlement to benefits and allowances among government employees is within the agencys exclusive authority. It argues that, hence, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals were in error to order the execution of the decision as the same totally disregards the rule that issuances of administrative agencies are valid and enforceable. Again, it asserts that the garnishment of its funds was not in order as there was no existing appropriation therefore. Respondents, on the other hand, argue in the main that inasmuch as the core issue of whether they were entitled to the schedule of benefits under Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 had already been settled by both the trial court in Civil Case No. 99-1209 and the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 66303, the DBM letter should not be allowed to interfere with the decision and render the same ineffective. Since the said decision had already attained finality, they posit that execution appeared to be the only just and equitable measure under the premises and that garnishment lies against petitioners funds inasmuch as it has a personality separate and distinct from the government. ISSUE: What is a writ of mandamus? HELD: A writ of mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law. It is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty which, as opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.38 A favorable judgment rendered in a special civil action for mandamus is in the nature of a special judgment. As such, it requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money or the sale or delivery of real or personal property the execution of which is governed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states: SECTION 11. Execution of Special Judgment.When the judgment requires the performance of any act other than those mentioned in the two preceding sections, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other person required thereby, or by law,

to obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment.

-oo0ooCHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs. SPS. MARTIR G.R. No. 184252 | September 11, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner assails CAs decision when it held that the extra-judicial foreclosure sale was void based on the ground that the newspaper where the notice of auction sale was published was not an accredited newspaper, which contention is not a requirement under existing laws and jurisprudence. In invalidating the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale, the appellate court found that the posting and publication requirements were not met.. The notice of extrajudicial foreclosure and sale was posted in the barangay hall and Hall of Justice of General Santos City for only fourteen (14) days, i.e. from May 6 to May 20, 1998 in violation of the mandated twenty (20) day period. Likewise, the publication in SUN STAR, a local newspaper, was not valid on the ground that said newspaper is not an accredited newspaper of general circulation in General Santos City pursuant to P.D. No. 1079. The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.16 ISSUE: Whether the requirement of publication was complied with. HELD: Presidential Decree 1079, the governing law at the time of the subject foreclosure, requires that notices shall be published in newspapers or publications published, edited and circulated in the same city and/or province where the requirement of general circulation applies, thus: Presidential Decree 1079 requires a newspaper of general circulation. A newspaper of general circulation is published for the dissemination of local news and general information; it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; and it is published at regular intervals. The newspaper must not also be devoted to the interest or published for the entertainment of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or religious denomination. The newspaper need not have the largest circulation so long as it is of general circulation.

Presidential Decree 1079, however, does not require accreditation. The requirement of accreditation was imposed by the Court only in 2001, through A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC or the Guidelines in the Accreditation of Newspapers and Periodicals Seeking to Publish Judicial and Legal Notices and Other Similar Announcements and in the Raffle Thereof. This circular cannot be applied retroactively to the case at bar as it will impair petitioners rights. In the instant case, the Affidavit of Publication executed by the account executive of Sun Star General Santos expressly provided that the said newspaper is of general circulation and is published in the City of General Santos. Hence, there was valid publication and consequently, the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale are valid.

-oo0oo-