that event, the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or thequashal of the writ of execution, or he may move the court to modify or alter thejudgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event. Theparty who alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should necessarilyestablish the facts by competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all tooeasy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment.The Court is not convinced that a supervening event occurred which wouldeffectively prevent the execution of the decision in G.R. No. 203241. While theforeclosure sale proceeded on 24 September 2014, after the =nality of the decision inG.R. No. 203241, the real estate mortgage in favor of Spouses Andueza was executedon 21 September 2011 while G.R. No. 203241 was pending. Serra could not possibly beunaware that a foreclosure sale would likely transpire since he was the mortgagor whodefaulted on his loan obligation. Clearly, Serra performed acts intended to defeat and
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 11 pages?
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Injunction