Friday, October 17, 2014

I shot the sheriffs of Butuan!

I shot the sheriffs of Butuan!


I have that stonewall conviction that sheriffs of Butuan City are wrong in insisting to execute a writ of demolition on houses on a portion of the land of the original owner-plaintiff and which portion was already sold to the new owner and that the owner filed a new case to get the possession over that part of the original parcel of land.

The rule in execution of judgment is that if the winner of a case asks for an implementation of the judgment award, then the sheriff must act to execute the judgment.   But if the winner does not act, the sheriff cannot do otherwise because it is always a right of the winner not to pursue his win in the judgment.

Now, it is only the plaintiff who can ask for the implementation of the judgment in a case involving a parcel of land.    In the event the plaintiff sold his rights to the land involved in the case, the plaintiff has no more right to ask the plaintiff to implement the writ.   That is because the plaintiff already gave away all his rights, and these rights include the winning in the case involving that land.  In other words, if the sheriffs were to execute a judgment, they must ask first the new owner.

But if the new owner filed a new case for the purpose of recovering the parcel of land, it means that the decision was abandoned.   And if it was abandoned, the sheriffs cannot use the abandoned right to demolish.  It is because abandonment extinguishes that right to execute judgment.

A representative of 17 families came to me and sought help despite the fact she already has a lawyer defending them.   She said that despite the fact that the ownership over the land subject of the case has changed, some sheriffs bluntly told her that "money is the law and if she does not have money the law is against them."

Acting on to help, I wrote the sheriffs of Butuan RTC,  A copy of that letter is posted below:

x-------------------------------------------x



16 October 2014

  
Reminder Against Demolition
of Family Homes Within Hong C. See Lot

  

HON. DARRYL A. ASIS
HON. ARCHIBALD S. VERGA
HON. EMANUEL S. JALAD
HON. JONNSON T. FAMADOR
HON. ALFONSO TEDDY G. REYES
HON. ANGEL C. ANCHETA, JR.
Regional Trial Court of Butuan City
Branch 2
Hall of Justice, Butuan City


Dear Honorable Sheriffs,


            On behalf of ANGELITA TAN LICUP and her relatives whose family homes are the subject matters of the new case filed by MR. HONG C SEE of Oro Rama, entitled “MR. HONG C. SEE rep. by Mr. ERWIN BRYAN O. SEE versus GEMMA BARRION, ET AL”, Civil Case 6284, the undersigned president of Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) respectfully REMINDS you that COMPLAINTS FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE will be filed before the Supreme Court against you if you proceed in demolishing the same houses.


            Please know that you cannot do such acts of demolishing their family homes and if you do otherwise you cannot escape administrative and criminal liabilities.


            The first two (2) reasons why you cannot demolish these houses are: (1) the existence of the said complaint, “Mr. Hong See vs Gemma Barrion, et al”; and (2) the fact that the writ you are going to implement pertains to another case, which is CAD CASE NO. 1, CAD REC. NO. 321 (LOT 447).


            The existence of the new case filed by Mr. Hong See has the supervening effect of abandonment by Mr. Hong See of his putative right to SECOND ALIAS WRIT OF DEMOLITION from CAD Case No. 1, CAD Rec. No. 321.


            The second reason why you cannot demolish these houses is that you even acknowledged that MR. HONG C. SEE bought from DR. JOYCE T. HIDALGO that same portion of Lot No. 447.  So that you cannot use the Second Alias Writ of Demolition against those occupants of the portion no longer belonging to Dr. Hidalgo.


            The third reason why you cannot demolish these houses within the portion supposedly bought by Mr. Hong See is it will render moot and moribund the case for recovery of possession filed by Mr. Hong See and this act is contemptuous.


            The fourth reason is that all of you are charged with the knowledge of the existence of the new case filed by Mr. Hong C. See.


            The fifth reason is that the case filed by Mr. Hong C. See is yet to be heard by the RTC of Butuan City, Branch 2.


These obstacles for you to demolish the said houses are very clear and do not need to be explained or litigated in order for you to know these. 


Hence, these obstacles are as good as ministerial for you to honor to deter you from demolishing these houses.


Ergo, you would be committing Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority should you refuse to heed this reminder.


In that Civil Case No. 6284, the defendants are:


1.     Gemma Barrion,
2.     Zaldy Galabay,
3.     Tessie Gordonaz.
4.     Julius Pecatoste
5.     Leoncio Pecatoste,
6.     Mesing Naraiso
7.     Bienvenido Pecatoste
8.     Inday Magallano
9.     Gerry Cabachete,
10. Mila Jumuad
11. James Viscaya
12. Mylene Cosong
13. Mameng Galabay
14. Leandro Irog-Irog
15. Boyet Tan
16. Freddie Barros
17. Rosalina Briones


The undersigned writes you because Ms. Licup came to ALAM to seek help against your threats that you will demolish their houses this Friday (17 October 2014) or on any day.


Hoping you give this matter a very serious thought and concern in the name of your respective careers and in the name of PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST.


Please know that the undersigned as president of ALAM is duty-bound to push and pursue this matter as one of the missions of this organization organized to promote, uplift and assist marginalized persons who are victims of social inequalities and injustice.


Thank you.



Respectfully yours,




ATTY. BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
President, ALAM / 09178834254


Cc:

CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES PUNZALAN ARANAL-SERENO
COURT ADMINISRATOR MIDAS MARQUEZ

PRESIDING JUDGE EMMANUEL E. ESCATRON, RTC of Butuan, Branch 2
Post a Comment

Amazon Contextual Product Ads

MAN OF IMPOSSIBLE MISSION