Vios v. Pantangco
Facts:
EJECTMENT CASE
Pantangco filed a case for ejectment against Vios. Pantangaco alleged that:(91) He is
a co-owner (2) prior to his purchase,he inquire from the petitioners if they are
interested to buy the land. when Petitioners responded that they were not
interested, defendant gave them 1 week to vacate the premises from his purchase
(3) petitioners refused to vacate (4) he filed the complaint
Petitioners denied the allegations of defendant. They alleged (1) the property is
unclassified public forest (2) said land was owned by Alfredo where they acquired
their rights through a document entitled waiver (3) Pantangcos title is fake
because said title originated from a nullified title (4) assuming the title is valid, the
property it covers is different from the premise they occupy.
MTC decided in favor of Pantangco. Vios filed a petition to quash the execution of the
decision of MTC because according to him, his lawyer which who received said
notice already withdrawn as his counsel before the judgment, hence he did not
receive the notice. Sheriff still implemented the writ of execution of the judgment.
CERTIORARI
Petitoner filed a certiorari in the RTC. RTC decided in favor of Vios saying that since
there is lack of notice to the petitioners, the decision has not become final and
executor. It also ordered the return of land in favor of the petitioner.
Vios filed for immediate execution of RTC decision but was denied because of MR.
MR was denied so Vios filed for 2nd immediate execution of judgment which was
granted.
Pantangco filed with CA for the declaration of nullity of the decision of RTC. CA ruled
in favor of VIOS saying that vios filed a motion to be furnished a copy of the decision
2 days before its finality. It would deprived Vios right if the decision of MTC is
executed.
Issue: