REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
6th Judicial Region
Branch 61
Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental
ESPERANZA TUMPAG CIVIL CASE NO. 666
Substituted by her son for: “Recovery of
Possession Pablito Tumpag Belnas, Jr., with
Damages”
Plaintiff,
-versus-
SAMUEL TUMPAG,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Before this court is a motion for the issuance of alias writ of
execution and alias writ of possession filed by the plaintiff thru
counsel and an opposition thereto filed by the defendant.
Plaintiff Esperanza Tumpag filed a motion for execution of
judgment dated January 28, 2016 based on the Entry of Judgment
which was issued on May 12, 2015, and that the same has become
final and executory. Thereafter, the writ of execution was issued on
April 10, 2017.
However, the defendant filed an opposition to the motion for
issuance of alias writ of execution and alias writ of possession on
September 27, 2017 on the reason that defendant Samuel Tumpag
had already vacated the subject premises. In view thereof the
issuance of alias writ of execution of the decision became moot and
academic. In addition, Leah Tumpag and Omega Tumpag has filed a
case for specific performance against the herein plaintiff for the
recovery of the 1/9 share they inherited from their late father
Honorato Tumpag and docketed as Civil Case No. 1852. In addition,
they ask for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against
the sheriff to prevent irreparable damages and injuries to them.
Subsequently, plaintiff filed its comment to the foregoing
opposition and reasoned that a motion for demolition was filed since
their structure is still standing on the subject property adjudged to
be that of the plaintiff. Moreover the award provided in the judgment
is still unsatisfied.
The Court resolves in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff should
not be prevented from enjoying the fruits of the final judgment in
their favor. Jurisprudence dictates that “litigation must come to an
end once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable. “
Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the
prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to
enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and
satisfaction of the judgment, which is the "life of the law."” 1
Likewise, in the case of Leonardo Lim De Mesa v. Hon. Court of
Appeals,2it was stated:
The execution thereof thus became a matter of right
on the part of the plaintiffs, herein private respondents,
and is a mandatory and ministerial duty on the part of the
court. Once a judgment becomes final and executory,
the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter
of right.
Finally, Civil Case No. 1852 was already dismissed by this court
on the ground of res judicata.3
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant motion is
hereby GRANTED. Let an Alias Writ of Execution of the decision by
this court dated June 3, 2002 be implemented for the satisfaction of
the judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, July 9, 2018.
1Bernardo De Leon v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 181970, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 547.
2G.R. No. 109387, April 25, 1994, 231 SCRA 773 .
3Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation, 441 Phil. 551, 564-565 (2002).
RODNEY Z. MAGBANUA
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SAN CARLOS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
BRANCH 59
IN THE MATTER OF CANCELLATION
OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE CERTIFI-
CATE OF SPS. EDGARDO O. CHAVENIA
AND FELINA CAUSING,
SPS. EDGARDO & FELINA CHAVENIA,
Petitioners,
- versus - SPEC. PROC. NO. RTC- 1267
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF TOBOSO,
NEGROS OCC. AND CIVIL REGISTRAR
GENERAL, PSA, MANILA,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
This is a Petition for Cancellation of the Second Certificate of
Marriage under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Spouses
Edgardo O. Chavenia and Felina Chavenia.
At the scheduled initial hearing, petitioners appeared together with
counsel. After counsel established the jurisdictional requirements4, the
Petition was called out to the public. As there was no Opposition, and upon
motion of counsel, she was allowed to present evidence ex-parte before Atty.
Edelyn Layumas-Celeste who was duly commissioned to receive the same.
At the presentation of evidence ex-parte, counsel presented petitioner
Felina C. Chavenia. In her Judicial Affidavit, petitioner confirmed and
affirmed the contents of said Affidavit, which can be summed up as follows:
She is 43 years old, married and a resident of Brgy. Bug-ang, Toboso,
4 Exhibits “A” to “H”, with submarking
Negros Occidental. She and her husband Edgardo O. Chavenia contracted
Spec. Proc. No. RTC- 1267
Decision
Page 2 of 3
marriage on October 28, 1995 at the home of Reverend Noe F. Bayona in Sagay, Negros
Occidental. They thought all along that their marriage was not registered and assumed it
was invalid because they have no document showing proof of such marriage. It is for
this reason that they got married again on June 17, 2000 before a parish priest in
Barangay Bug-ang, Toboso, Negros Occidental. They found out later on that their first
marriage was in fact registered, valid and subsisting as evidenced by a Marriage
Contract5 dated October 28, 1995. When they contracted their second marriage,
another Marriage Contract was issued as evidenced by a photocopy of their Certificate
of Marriage under Register No. 2000-1076. A Certification7 dated December 30, 2014
issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) also confirmed that there are two
marriage certificates subsisting between her and her husband. Petitioner prays that their
second marriage certificate dated June 17, 2000 before the parish priest of Brgy. Bug-
ang, Toboso, Negros Occidental be cancelled and the Certificate of Marriage dated
October 28, 1995 be retained.
From a perusal of the evidence presented, it is clear that petitioners underwent two
wedding ceremonies, first before Reverend Noe F. Bayona at Sagay, Negros Occidental
and a second ceremony before a parish priest at Brgy. Bug-ang, Toboso, Negros
Occidental. But parties to both ceremonies are the same. Hence, since the civil
requirements were already complied with in the first ceremony, then there was no need
for the parties to do so for the second ceremony as the latter did not have any legal effect
whatsoever. Thus, the second Certificate of Marriage is a surplusage and should
properly be cancelled.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Court hereby GRANTS the Petition
for the Cancellation of the Second Certificate of Marriage and ORDERS the
cancellation of the Certificate of Marriage between Edgardo O. Chavenia and Felina C.
Chavenia with Register No. 2000-107 now registered with the Local Civil Registrar of
Toboso, Negros Occidental.
The petitioner is allowed to withdraw from the Office of the Clerk of Court the
5 Exhibits “I”, with submarkings
6 Exhibits “J”, with submarkings
7 Exhibits “K”
balance of the Server's Fee in the amount of Seven Hundred Seventy (P770.00) Pesos
under Official Receipt No. 9413712.
Spec. Proc. No. RTC- 1267
Decision
Page 3 of 3
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Local Civil Registrar of Toboso,
Negros Occidental, Office of the Solicitor General, the Philippine Statistics Authority
and petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, August 23, 2016.
KATHRINE A. GO
Presiding Judge
