Neither can We affirm petitioner's contention that in seeking the quashal of the writ of possession, the respondents were, in effect, asking the RTC to abrogate its decision, which had already attained finality. As correctly observed by the CA, the quashal of a writ of possession does not have the effect of modifying or abrogating the judgment of the RTC. “The settled rule is that a judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and hence may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes – all the issues between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest.” To reiterate, however, the court's power with regard to execution of judgments extends only to properties irrefutably belonging to the judgment debtor, which does not obtain in this case.
Therefore, petitioner's contention that the writ of possession had already been enforced and can no longer be quashed deserves scant consideration. Unquestionably, the RTC has a general supervisory control over the entire execution process, and such authority carries with it the right to determine every question which may be invariably involved in the execution. Respondents invoked this supervisory power when they sought the quashal of the writ of possession (Vashdeo Gagoomal Vs. Spouses Ramon and Natividad Villacorta, G.R. No. 192813. January 18, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment