Scribd
Upload
221 views1 page

Case Digest - 5 PDF

The petitioner filed an urgent petition to lift an alias writ of execution and order of demolition, claiming she acquired rights to the disputed lot through a 1959 resolution and the demolition would deprive her of property without due process. The respondent judge denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner's right to due process was violated, as denying the petition and threatening enforcement of the writ and order without a hearing would deprive her of property without due process of law.

Uploaded by

Mark Stephen Ravelas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
221 views1 page

Case Digest - 5 PDF

The petitioner filed an urgent petition to lift an alias writ of execution and order of demolition, claiming she acquired rights to the disputed lot through a 1959 resolution and the demolition would deprive her of property without due process. The respondent judge denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner's right to due process was violated, as denying the petition and threatening enforcement of the writ and order without a hearing would deprive her of property without due process of law.

Uploaded by

Mark Stephen Ravelas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G. R. No. L-23174.

September 18, 1967 ]

CONCEPCION MAKABINGKIL, PETITIONER, V, HON. NICASIO YATCO,


JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, QUEZON CITY
BRANCH, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL AND SHERIFF OF QUEZON
CITY, IRENE DE LEON AND HER

HUSBAND VICENTE LLANES. RESPONDENTS

Facts: A writ of Execution was issued with the nal decision of the CA a rming
th elower court decion being included to demolish the house existing in the
premise of the landquestions, it was occupied by suquatters.

The petitioner immediately immediately led an urgent petition to lift the alias
writ of execution and order of demolition with preliminary injunction alleging that
she "is not a squatter on the Lot in question, she having acquired her rights and
interest over the said Lot by virtue of Resolution No. 370 dated December 18,
1959.

She reiterated that such order of demolition dated April 18, 1964, would not only
cause great and irreparable injury, but would also cause injustice to her by
depriving her of her property without due process of law

respondent Judge "without hearing the matter as alleged in said petition and
consequently without any evidence received, denied her petition to lift alias writ
of execution and order of demolition with preliminary

injunction."

issue; Whether or not there is a violation of due process

Ruling: yes, The due process concept is thus a vital living force in our
jurisprudence

Petitioner was therefore right in asserting that "the separate and collective e ect
of the Writ of Execution and Order of Demolition . . . and the respondent
Provincial Sheri 's threat to enforce [the same] is to work unwarranted hardship
and irreparable damage and injustice upon the Petitioner who has not been
accorded her day in court." It would as claimed be tantamount to a deprivation
of her property rights without due process of law.

Petitioner's right to due process must be respected. This Court could go even
further. This petition for certiorari and prohibition could be utilized to determine
who has the right to the disputed lot.

ff
fi
fi
ffi
ff

You might also like