Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISSUE: WON THE MOTION FOR EXECUTION WAS PREMATURELY AND IMPROPERLY
FILED
RULING: The KatarungangPambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations, Rule VII, Section
2 provides:
In this case, there is no question that the petitioners were obliged under the settlement to vacate
the premises in January 2000. The time line in Section 417 should be construed to mean that if
the obligation in the settlement to be enforced is due and demandable on the date of the
settlement, the six-month period should be counted from the date of the settlement; otherwise,
if the obligation to be enforced is due and demandable on a date other than the date of the
settlement, the six-month period should be counted from the date the obligation becomes due
and demandable.
The petitioners are estopped from assailing the amicable settlement on the ground of deceit and
fraud. First. The petitioners failed to repudiate the settlement within the period
therefor. Second. The petitioners were benefited by the amicable settlement. They were
allowed to remain in the property without any rentals therefor until December 1998. They
were even granted extensions to continue in possession of the property. It was only when the
respondent filed the motion for execution that the petitioners alleged for the first time that the
respondents deceived them into executing the amicable settlement.[38]