G.R. No. L-2893. December 31, 1949.
AGRIPINO JIMENEZ and SOFIA RESTAR, petitioners, vs. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Agripino Jimenez and Sofia Restar were defendants in a land recovery case (Civil Case No. 704) before the Court of First Instance of Marinduque, where judgment was rendered against them. They received notice of the judgment on December 30, 1948. They subsequently filed a motion to amend findings of fact on January 11, 1949, and a motion for new trial on January 28, 1949, which lacked specification of the new evidence or the alleged errors. The trial court issued a writ of execution on February 14, 1949, deeming the judgment final. A more specific motion for new trial was later filed on March 1, 1949. Petitioners sought certiorari to set aside the writ of execution.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution issued on February 14, 1949, was valid, i.e., whether the judgment had already become final and executory at that time.

RULING

Yes, the writ of execution was valid. The judgment became final and executory on January 29, 1949 (30 days from notice on December 30, 1948). The motion to amend findings filed on January 11, 1949, did not suspend the period for appeal as it was not a motion to set aside the judgment. The motion for new trial filed on January 28, 1949, was pro forma for lack of the required specifications under the rules and thus also did not interrupt the appeal period. The subsequent motion of March 1, 1949, though proper, was filed after the judgment had already become final. Therefore, the trial court correctly issued the writ of execution. The petition was denied.

AI Generated by Armztrong.