Practice question
An execution objection relies exclusively on a transaction known to and litigated by both parties before final judgment. No later development is established. The objector calls it supervening merely because the objection is filed later. Which is correct?
- Every late motion creates a new substantive event.
- Renaming a prior fact conclusively satisfies the exception.
- The earlier adjudication is irrelevant.
- All known defenses remain perpetually open despite finality.
- The filing date does not transform the old litigated transaction into a circumstance transpiring after finality.
Legal references
- DOST Officials and Personnel v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 253218, February 4, 2025, main decision, finality and its exceptions: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/feb2025/gr_253218_2025.html
- Atup v. People, G.R. Nos. 229395 and 252705, November 10, 2021, main decision, limits of clerical and nunc pro tunc correction: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_229395_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.