Rule 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
Rule 39 is on the subject of Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments. This is the longest rule in the study of Civil Procedure. Take note that there are 48 Sections. Let us first review the fundamentals.
Q: When the judgment becomes final and executory, what are the effects? A: The finality of a judgment produces three (3) effects, to wit:
1.) The prevailing party is entitled to have the judgment executed as a matter of right and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court (Rule 39);
2.) The court rendering the judgment loses jurisdiction over the case so that it can no longer correct the judgment in substance, except to make corrections of clerical errors and omissions plainly due to inadvertence or negligence. (Locsin vs. Paredes, 63 Phil. 87; Manaois vs. Natividad, L-13927, Feb. 28, 1960; Maramba vs. Lozano, L-21533, June 29, 1967)
If after the judgment is rendered, you file a motion for reconsideration or new trial, there is a possibility for the court to change its mind and its judgment. But once the judgment has become final, the court has no more power to change its judgment substantially. The error will also become final, you can no longer change anything substantial.
EXCEPTION: There is one type of judgment which can be changed
substantially even long after it became final as an exception to this rule. In the study of Persons, Judgment for Support. The judgment for support, which can be modified at any time because the obligation to give support depends not only on the resources of the obligor, but also on the ever-changing needs of the obligee. (Malabana vs. Abeto, 74 Phil. 13)
EXAMPLE: The father refuses to support his minor child. After trial,
the court orders the father to support the child at P1,000 per month. Four years later, the father is already well-off and the child is already in nursery or kindergarten. So the child tells his lawyer that the amount for support must be increased from P1,000 to P5,000. The father says,
“the court said P1,000 and if you change that to P5,000, that would be substantial.” The father is wrong. The amount for support can be
changed anytime. In the same manner. The amount can also be lowered, as when the father loses his job.
3.) Res Adjudicata supervenes. (NLU vs. CIR, L-14975, May 15, 1962)
The same cause of action between the same parties can never be the subject matter of another litigation in the future. Any subsequent case is barred by prior judgment.
Q: Define execution.
A: EXECUTION is the remedy provided by law for the enforcement of a judgment. (21 Am. Jur. 18) It is the fruit and the end of the suit and is very aptly called the life of the law (PAL vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 557).
It would be useless if there is judgment but you cannot enforce the same. Q: Who will enforce the judgment?
A: The very same court which rendered the judgment.
Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin. If an appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may be applied for also in the court of origin on motion of the judgment obligee. (Sec. 1) In filing a motion for execution of an appealed judgment, there is no need to wait for the records of the case to be remanded to the court of origin. All that is required is for the appeal to have been duly perfected and finally resolved before execution may be applied for (Borgonia vs. Decano 317 SCRA 660). This is because when the judgment obligee files a motion for execution in the court of origin, all he has to do is to attach the certified true copies of (a) the judgment of the appellate court, and (b) the entry of said judgment (Sec. 1) even if the records have not as yet been remanded to the court of origin. This procedure prevents needless delays in the execution of the judgment.
If for whatever reason, the execution cannot be had with dispatch in the court of origin, the new rules likewise afford the judgment obligee a remedy. He may file a motion with the appellate court to direct the court of origin, in the interest of justice, to issue the writ of execution (Sec.1).
Writ of execujudicial a judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing him to execute the judgment of the court.
Q: How is execution generally done?
A: It is generally done by filing a motion for execution by the prevailing party and the court will then issue an order of execution, which will be followed with a writ of execution, and the sheriff will enforce the judgment.
In Lou vs. Siapno 335 SCRA 181, it was ruled that even in judgments which are immediately executory, “there must be a motion to that effect and a hearing called for the purpose.” Also, “under Supreme Court Circular No. 24-94, a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution must contain a notice to the adverse party” (Pallada vs. RTC of Kalibo, Aklan Br. 1 304 SCRA 440).
A motion for the issuance of a writ of execution shall contain a notice to the adverse party. A motion which does not contain a notice of hearing, of the time and place for the hearing of the motion, as required by Secs. 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon (Pallada vs. RTC of Kalibo Aklaan, Br. 1, supra).
Because of the present phraseology of Sec. 1, rulings like those made in De Mesa vs. CA 231 SCRA 773 to the effect that where execution is a matter of right, the judgment debtor need not be given an advanced notice of the application for execution nor be afforded a prior hearing thereon, must necessarily be deemed abandoned.
So, we file a motion in court after the judgment has become final and executory.
Q: How can the court issue the order when it has already lost jurisdiction over the case because from what we have learned here is that, one of the effects of the finality of judgment is that the court loses jurisdiction over the case. And when the court loses jurisdiction, it can no longer act on the case. So, how can it still issue orders in that case when actually, once the judgment becomes final and executory, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case and it can no longer act in that case?
A: What is meant by that statement is that, the court can no longer change the judgment. That is why new trial and reconsideration is not anymore available in this stage. The judgment is beyond the power of the court to change or alter.
BUT definitely the court can act on that case for the purpose of enforcing its judgment because it is absurd to claim that a trial court has the power to try and hear a case but once the judgment has already become final, it has no more power to enforce it. If you will really describe jurisdiction in its complete aspect, we can say jurisdiction is “the power of the court to act on the case, to try, to decide
and to enforce its judgment.” That would be more complete. Because enforcement
is part of the court's jurisdiction.
Q: Against whom shall the execution issue?
A: Generally, execution can issue only against a (losing) party to the case and not against one who is a complete stranger because majority of judgments are in
personam. They are only enforceable against the parties themselves or their
successors-in-interest – people who derive their rights from him. And a judgement can never be enforced against a complete stranger who never had his day in court. (Cruzcosa vs. Concepcion, 101 Phil. 146; Castañeda vs. De Leon, 55 O.G. 625, Jan. 26, 1959; Bacolod vs. Enriquez, 55 O.G. 10545, Dec. 21, 1959)
Q: What portion in the decision is normally the subject of execution ?
A: It is the dispositive portion – the “WHEREFORE…” – that is going to be enforced. (Robles vs. Timario, 58 O.G. 1507, Feb. 19, 1962).
Writ of execution must conform with judgment
The writ of execution must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be executed and the execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award for it is a settled general principle that a writ of execution must conform strictly to every essential particulars of the judgment promulgated (Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. vs. N:LRC 250 SCRA 418; Equatorial Realty Development Inc. vs. Mayfair Theatre Inc. 332 SCRA 139; Banquerigo vs. CA GR 164633 August 7, 2006).
Thus, if the judgment does not provide for the payment of interest, the writ of execution cannot modify the judgment by requiring the judgment obligor to pay interest. That part of the writ imposing interest is void (Solidbank Corp. vs. CA 379 SCRA 159).
Essential requisites of a writ of execution
1. It must conform strictly to the decision or judgment which gives it life; and 2. it cannot vary the intent of the judgment it seeks to enforce.
CLASSES OF EXECUTION Q: What are the classes of execution under the law? A: The following:
I. As to their nature:
1.) COMPULSORY execution – known as Execution as a Matter of Right (Section 1)
2.) DISCRETIONARY execution – known as Execution Pending Appeal (Section 2)
II. As to how it is enforced (Section 6): 1.) EXECUTION BY MOTION
2.) EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
COMPULSORY EXECUTION
(Execution as a matter of right) EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;
FIRST INSTANCE: NO APPEAL, JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL
Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. – Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of examination.
Q: What are the conditions for compulsory execution? A: The following are the conditions:
1.) FIRST CONDITION: If a judgment has disposed already of the action or proceeding then it can be executed ;
2.) SECOND CONDITION: The period to appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed/taken from the judgment.
Under the first condition, if a judgment has disposed already of the action or proceeding then it can be executed because if the judgment or order has not yet disposed of the action or proceeding, that is called an interlocutory judgment or order.
One of the effects of finality of a judgment under Rule 36 is that the prevailing party is entitled to have the judgment executed as a matter of right. And it is the ministerial duty of the court to execute its own judgment. So once the judgment has become final, all that the winner or prevailing party has to do is to file an action in court for execution, the court has to issue.
When the law says it is a matter of right upon a judgment or order that disposes the action or proceeding, it means that after the judgment was rendered, there is nothing more for the court to do because its job is over. Therefore, if there is something more that the court can do, as a rule, you cannot execute. That is why conditional judgments, incomplete judgments cannot be executed.
Under the second condition, we must wait for the period to appeal to expire before we can move for execution. So, if the period to appeal has not yet expired, then we cannot execute the judgment.
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the issuance of a writ of execution becomes the ministerial duty of the court (Buaya vs. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. 342 SCRA 576). Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the presiding judge to issue a writ of execution except in certain cases, as when subsequent events would render execution of judgment unjust (Mangahas vs. Paredes GR 157866 February 14, 2007).
Judgments and orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The trial court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by operation of law (Testate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan 374 SCRA621). Its finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period for appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such period (Vlason Enterprises vs. CAS 310 SCRA 26).
Q: May the court refuse to execute a judgment on the ground that the judgement was wrong or erroneous?
A: NO, because it is a matter of and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution upon a final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty of the court to execute which is compellable by mandamus. (Ebero vs. Cañizares, 79 Phil. 152) The principle is: No matter how erroneous a judgment may be, so long as the lower court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in litigation, (in short the judgment is valid), the said judgment is enforceable by execution once it becomes final and executory. The error also becomes final. If it is erroneous, the remedy is to appeal, otherwise the error becomes final as well.
In execution, if you are not careful, there are lawyers who are very good in thwarting an execution where a series of maneuvers are utilized - we can still be delayed by questioning this and that and sometimes courts are unwitting accomplices. That is why in the 1994 of
230 SCRA 606
HELD: “We have time and again ruled that courts should never
allow themselves to be a party to maneuvers intended to delay the execution of final decisions. They must nip in the bud any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice, fair play and prompt implementation of final and executory judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.”
GENERAL RULE: Judgment is enforceable by execution once it becomes final and executory.
EXCEPTIONS: (WOLFSON vs. DEL ROSARIO, 46 Phil. 41)
1. When there has been a change in the situation of the parties, which makes the execution inequitable;
2. When it appears that the controversy has never been submitted to the judgment of the court;
3. When the judgment was novated by subsequent agreement of the parties;
4. When it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued;
5. When the writ of execution is defective in substance;
6. When the writ of execution is issued against the wrong party; and 7. When the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied.
[1] WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES
WHICH MAKE THE EXECUTION INEQUITABLE. (Supervening Fact Doctrine)
One of the most important exceptions is the first one: When there has been a
change in the situation of the parties which make the execution inequitable. Meaning,
from the time na nagkaroon ng final judgment up to the present, there has been a change in the situation of the parties so that if we will execute, the judgment becomes inequitable already. So, this is just another way of saying that there has been a SUPERVENING EVENT that happened which makes execution inequitable.
EXAMPLE: There was a case where A filed a case to eject B from his property and B lost the case and there was a judgment ordering him to vacate the property of A. But while the case was going on, A mortgaged his property to the bank. In the meantime, he failed to pay his loan and the bank foreclosed the mortgage. So the property was sold at public auction. And at the auction sale, B, the one occupying it, bought the property. The owner now is B. But there is a final judgment ejecting him. Now, shall we insist on the judgment ejecting B? No because B is now the owner. The fact that B became the owner is a supervening event.
PHIL. VETERANS BANK (PVB) vs. IAC 178 SCRA 645
NOTE: There was a time before that the PVB was closed for 5 to 6
years because I think they have some problems. So the Central Bank has to take over. The Central Bank has ordered to stop the operation – placed under receivership, the Central Bank will control. Now under the Central Bank Law, once the Central Bank takes over the control of a private bank, all its assets has to be preserved. No assets will be sold or disposed of.
FACTS: There was somebody who sued PVB, and PVB lost. So there
was a judgment which became final. And the winner asked the court to execute. Practically, you have to levy on the property of the bank. In the meantime, the PVB was placed under receivership, where under the law, it cannot be disposed of because it is under the control of the Central Bank.
ISSUE: Can the prevailing party insist on the enforcement of the
judgment and get and levy the property of the PVB?
HELD: NO. The placement of the bank under receivership is a
SUPERVENING EVENT. “Once a decision has become final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution, admits certain exceptions. The fact that petitioner is placed under receivership is a supervening event that renders a judgment notwithstanding its finality unenforceable by attachment or execution.”
SAMPAGUITA GARMENTS CORP. vs. NLRC 233 SCRA 260
FACT: An employee was terminated by his employer on the ground
of theft. He stole company property. The management filed also a case of theft against the employee. But in the meantime the employee also
filed a labor case against the employer for illegal dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with back wages. After hearing, the NLRC ruled that there was illegal termination and ordered the reinstatement of the employee and payment of backwages. The NLRC decision became final. In the meantime, the accused was convicted in the criminal case for theft and ordered to go to prison.
ISSUE: What happens now to the final judgment of the NLRC
reinstating the employee?
HELD: “An employee’s conviction for theft, which was affirmed by
the RTC and the CA, is a SUPERVENING CAUSE that renders unjust and inequitable the NLRC decision mandating the employee’s reinstatement with backwages.”
Take note however that for the supervening event to apply, the supervening event must happen after the judgment has become final and executory. Not that the supervening event happened while the case was going on. If the case is going on and something happened which you believe would make the decision against you unfair, your duty is to bring it to the attention of the court so that the court deciding the case would take that into consideration. In the case of
VALENZONA vs. COURT OF APPEALS 226 SCRA 36
HELD: “While the rule is that a stay of execution of a final judgment may be authorized if necessary to accomplish the ends of justice, as for instance, where there has been a change in the situation of the parties which makes such execution inequitable, nevertheless the said rule cannot be invoked when the supposed change in the circumstances of the parties took place while the case was pending, for the reason that there was then no excuse for not bringing to the attention of the court the fact or circumstance that affects the outcome of the case.”
The ruling in VALENZOLA was reiterated in
ABOITIZ vs. TRAJANO 278 SCRA 387 [1997]
HELD: “We are of course well aware of the rule authorizing the court
to modify or alter a judgment even after the same has become executory, whenever circumstances transpire rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. However, this rule, we must emphasize, applies only to cases where the facts or circumstances authorizing such
modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final executory.”
[3] WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS NOVATED BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT.
QUESTION: Can the parties enter into a compromise agreement when there is already a decision?
ANSWER: YES. Compromise agreement is welcome anytime – before the case is filed, while the case is going on, while the case is on appeal.
Q: Now suppose there is a decision in my favor against you and then you approach me and say, “Pwede ba pag-usapan na lang natin ito?” “Sige okay.” Then we arrive at another agreement which we signed, where the agreement is different from the decision in my favor. Can it be done?
A: Yes, I can waive my rights under the judgment. There is now a new agreement between us.
Q: Can I execute on the original judgment?
A: No more, because the new agreement novated the judgment. Take note that in case of novation, the new obligation must be totally incompatible with the first obligation.
A related question:
Q: Can one court by injunction or restraining order stop the execution of a judgment of another court?
A: GENERAL RULE: NO, because that will amount to interference.
EXCEPTIONS:(when the enforcement of a final judgment may be stopped by way of injunction)
1.) Rule 38, Section 5:
Rule 38, Section 5: Preliminary injunction pending proceedings. – The court in which the petition is filed, may grant such preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon the merits, he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by reason of the issuance of such injunction or
the other proceedings following the petition; but such injunction shall not operate to discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party may have acquired upon the property of the petitioner.
In effect, there is a final and executory judgment but the court will issue an injunction to stop this enforcement because of the pendency of a petition for relief from judgment.
2.) When there is an action for annulment of judgment of the RTC filed in the CA.
The CA may issue a writ of preliminary injunction – annulment of judgment, certiorari, or prohibition cases where the CA will issue a preliminary injunction to stop the RTC from enforcing its judgment pending the resolution of whether its judgment was rendered in excess or without jurisdiction- annulment of judgement, certiorari, or prohibition cases where the CA will issue a preliminary injunction to stop the RTC from enforcing its judgement pending the resolution of whether its judgement was rendered in excess or without jurisdiction.
So, those are the exceptions.
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;
SECOND INSTANCE: CA AFFIRMS THE RTC JUDGMENT
Q: Is there any other instances where a judgement maybe executed as a matter of right?
A: YES, when the losing party appealed the RTC decision to the CA and the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Kung may appeal, the judgment is not final, you cannot execute. The case is now in the CA, the CA decided in your favor, the RTC judgment was affirmed and the CA decision has also become final and executory. So you can now execute.
Q: How do you execute in that situation?
A: That is now covered by the second and third paragraphs of Section 1:
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
Now the usual procedure no, when you win in the RTC and the losing party appeals, the records of the case will be brought to the CA. Later, there will be a CA decision: The judgment of the RTC of Davao City is affirmed in toto. Now you have to wait for the CA judgment to become final because that may be appealed further to the SC. If the judgment becomes final, the clerk of court will make an entry of final judgment of the CA decision. Normally after that, the records from the CA will be returned to Davao. It will be sent back to the court of origin. Once the record is back, the RTC is supposed to tell you, the records are here. That is the time you file a motion for execution. You will file it in the RTC.
But sometimes, it takes months for the CA to return the records. That is the trouble with the CA. It takes them several months, when the case is appealed, before they tell you that the record is here.
In the PRESENT rules, this is taken from the SC Circular 24-94 which took effect in 1994, hindi na kailangan hintayin ang records na bumalik dito. Just get a certified copy of the CA decision, get a copy of the entry of final judgment of the CA. You just attach a copy of the CA judgment and a certificate from the CA clerk of court that it is already final and executory - meaning, that there is already entry of final judgment. This is much faster than waiting for the records to be returned.
The first paragraph in Section 1 normally deals with judgment usually becoming final and executory in the RTC. The rest of the paragraph deals with appeal which affirmed the decision of the RTC. So that is the procedure for execution – both cases, execution is a matter of right because judgment is final and executory.
The alternative which is the last paragraph, in the interest of justice, you can file also your motion for execution in the CA and the CA will direct the RTC to issue the writ of execution.
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; THIRD INSTANCE: CASES UNDER SECTION 4
Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right? A: This is the third instance found in Section 4:
Sec. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. - Judgments in action for injunction, receivership,
accounting and support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party. (4a)
GENERAL RULE: If there is an appeal, the judgment will be stayed.
EXCEPTIONS (Under Section 4): Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting, support, judgment declared to be immediately executory.
So, actions for injunction, receivership, accounting, support. So for example: there’s an injunction from the court: “The defendant is enjoined from trespassing on
plaintiff’s land.” Then you appealed. So, the decision is not final. Now, if the
judgment is not yet final, what will you do in the meantime. So, you’ll say; “I’ll
just continue to trespass because anyway the judgment is not yet final.” Ah hindi yan
pwede. Even if the judgment is not yet final, even if it is on appeal, you have to honor the injunction. So, in effect, it is a matter of right.
Another Example: An order directing you to render an accounting. Take the case of recovery of possession of land with accounting of the income that you received. After trial, “Okey, Defendant, you turn over the possession of the property to
the plaintiff and you render an accounting.” Appeal ka. Pag appeal mo, there must
be an accounting in the meantime.
So, if there is a judgment for an action for support, you must comply with the judgment even before it becomes final. So, the amendment now includes support and this phrase, “such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be
immediately executory.” Any judgment which is declared by law to be
immediately executory has to be enforced even before it becomes final and executory even if there is an appeal.
Q: Give an example of a law which declares a judgement to be immediately executory?
A: The best example would be the Summary Procedure – where a decision of the MTC in a civil case is appealed to the RTC, the decision of the RTC is
immediately executory even if we go to the CA. It has to be executed unless the appellate court will stop the execution in the meantime.
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;
FOURTH INSTANCE: FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?
A: YES, under Rule 70 – a judgment of the MTC in a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case is immediately executory (i.e. subject to immediate execution) even if it is not yet final and executory.
TO SUMMARIZE:
Q: When is execution a matter of right? A: In the following:
1.) Section 1, paragraph 1 – no appeal; judgment becomes final;
2.) Section 1, paragraph 2 – there is an appeal; once the CA judgment becomes final;
3.) Section 4 – Judgment in an action for injunction, receivership, accounting, support, judgment declared to be immediately executory;
and
4.) Rule 70 – Judgments in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases.
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
(Execution pending appeal)
Section 2. Discretionary execution. –
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. – On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in the possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order the execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several, separate or partial
judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
We’ll now go to the second type of execution - discretionary or execution pending appeal. Discretionary, meaning, the court may or may not order the execution.
Here, the prevailing party files a motion for execution within the 15 days period. So in other words, the judgment is not yet final and executory, normally, within the period to appeal.
Q: Normally, can you file a motion for execution within the period to appeal? A: As a rule, you cannot because it is not yet final. But by EXCEPTION, Section 2 allows you, provided, according to the last paragraph, discretionary execution may only issue upon ‘good reason’ to be stated in the special order after due hearing.
Q: Therefore, what are the requisites for discretionary execution? A: The following are the requisites for discretionary execution:
1.) There must be a motion filed by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party;
2.) There must be a hearing of the motion;
3.) There must be good reasons to justify the discretionary execution; and 4.) The good reasons to execute must be stated in a special order after due
hearing (Mancenido vs. CA 330 SCRA 419; Geolistics Inc. vs. Cateway Electronics, GR 174256-57, March 25, 2009).
Why discretionary? Because the court may or may not grant the execution depending on whether there is a good reason or no good reason. Unlike in Section 1, when the judgment has become final and executory, you do not have to cite any good reason. The only reason for the execution is that the judgment becomes final and executory. But in the case of execution pending appeal, you must justify it – the party must convince the court to grant the execution. And remember according to the SC, execution under Section 2 is not the general rule, that is the exception.
“The requirement of good reason is important and must not be overlooked, because if the judgment is executed and, on appeal, the same is reversed, although there are provisions for restitution, oftentimes damages may arise which cannot be fully compensated. Accordingly, execution should be granted only when these considerations are clearly outweighed by superior circumstances demanding urgency, and the above provision requires a statement
of those circumstances as a security for their existence.” (City of Bacolod vs. Enriquez, 101 Phil. 644)
It is even a misnomer – execution pending appeal. For all you know, the losing party may or may not appeal. It is actually called execution pending appeal because you are filing the motion within the period to appeal.
Q: What will happen if there are no good reasons?
A: The writ of execution is void because it does not state why you are executing a judgment. (AFWU vs. Estipona, L-17934, Dec. 28, 1961) And remember that execution pending appeal is the exception rather than the rule. And there is a possibility that the judgment in your favor will be reversed on appeal.
Q: Suppose we will execute the judgment pending appeal and the appeal will proceed then it will be reversed, what will happen then?
A: If that happens, then there is Section 5 – eh di, magsaulian tayo if it is reversed totally, partially, or annulled on appeal or otherwise. There will be MUTUAL RESTITUTION. That is the remedy under Section 5. But the trouble is ang hirap man ng saulian, eh. There could not be a 100% perfect restitution. That is the same asking the question, how can you unscramble an unscrambled egg? This is one reason why execution pending appeal is not favored.
Section 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. - Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court, may, on motion, issue such orders and justice may warrant under the circumstances (5a)
Q: Give examples of GOOD REASONS which would justify execution pending appeal.
A: Following are example of good reasons:
1.) When there is danger of the judgment becoming INEFFECTUAL. (Scottish Union vs. Macadaeg, 91 Phil. 891);
In this case of MACADAEG, the plaintiff sued a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. So it has assets no? The plaintiff sued the foreign company and he won, there was award, but hindi pa final. In the meantime, plaintiff learned the foreign company is going to stop completely its business in the Philippines and they are going to send back all their assets abroad. Sabi ng na plaintiff: “Aba delikado ako. Suppose after
dito. It has no more office, no operations, no assets; but in the meantime meron pa”? So the plaintiff filed a motion for execution pending appeal. If we will
wait for the judgment to become final, by that time the judgment will become ineffectual.
2.) OLD AGE; There was a case an old woman files a case against somebody to recover her land from the defendant which the latter has deprived her of the property for years. The defendant enjoyed the property and the fruits. After years of litigation she won, she was about 80. And then mag-aappeal pa yong kalaban. The old woman filed a motion in court asking for immediate execution even if the judgment is not yet final on the argument that “I have been deprived for years of the possession and of the property; and there
is a probable appeal which may take another couple of years. By the time I win the case on appeal, I may already be dead. I have not enjoyed the property and the fruits.” The SC said, all right that is a good reason.
3.) Where the appeal is for the purpose of DELAY;
Q: How about the argument that the intended appeal is dilatory? It is only intended to prolong the supposed execution and therefore the losing party has a chance to win the appeal. Is that a good ground for execution pending appeal ?
A: In the old case of PRESBITERO vs. RODAS (73 Phil. 300) and JAVELLANA vs. QUERUBIN (July 30, 1966) the SC said that, that is a good reason – when the appeal is interposed for delay.
However, in the case of AQUINO vs. SANTIAGO (161 SCRA 570) the SC said that it is not a ground because it is as if the trial court is already acting like the CA. It is only the CA which has the power to claim that the appeal is without merit. That’s another reasoning.
But in the case of HOME INSURANCE CO. vs. CA (184 SCRA 318), the SC ruled that, that would be a good reason again specially that there are many factors to show the inequity of not executing the judgment immediately (if coupled with other reason). That’s why in the case of
HOME INSURANCE CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 184 SCRA 318
HELD: “A good and sufficient reason upon which to issue
execution of the judgment pending appeal is when the appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay. While it is true that it is not for the trial court to say that the appeal may not prosper or that it is frivolous [so, the SC is aware of these pronouncements], there are
circumstances which may serve as cogent bases for arriving at such a conclusion.” Dean I: An example where the trial court maybe justified in saying that the appeal is dilatory is in default judgements where there is no evidence for the defendant. And then the defendant appeals. Now what is the chance of reversal when all the evidence is for the plaintiff? The possibility that the judgment will be reversed is almost zero (0). Therefore the court can rule that the appeal is dilatory and then order the execution of the judgment pending appeal upon motion of the plaintiff.
The SC continues: “Another vital factor which led trial court to allow execution pending appeal was the pendency of the case for more than 17 years so that the purchasing power of the peso has undeniably declined. Petitioner should be given relief before it is too late.”
Where the sole reason given by the trial court in disallowing an appeal is that the appeal is frivolous and dilatory, execution pending appeal cannot be justified because the authority to disapprove an appeal pertains to the appellate court (International School, Inc. Manila vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 474) Mere allegation that the appeal is dilatory is not a good reason to merit discretionary execution (Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. vs. CA 341 SCRA 90).
In Sangkay vs. NPC GR 141447 May 4, 2006, the Court stressed that the trial court is not justified to order the execution pending appeal, on its assertion that the appeal of the respondent is a dilatory tactic. It is not for the trial judge to determine of a decision he rendered as this is the role of the appellate court. Hence, it is not within the competence of the trial court, in resolving a motion for execution pending appeal, to rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and rely on the same as basis for finding good reasons to grant the motion. Only an appellate court can appreciate the dilatory intent of an appeal as an additional good reason in upholding an order for execution pending appeal. 4. Financial distress is also not in itself a good reason to justify execution pending appeal (Intraamuros Tennis Club, Inc. vs. CA, supra)
PB COM. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 279 SCRA 364 [Sept. 23, 1997]
HELD: “It is significant to stress that private respondent Falcon is
a juridical entity and not a natural person. Even assuming that it was indeed in financial distress and on the verge of facing civil or even criminal suits, the immediate execution of a judgment in its favor pending appeal cannot be justified as Falcon's situation may not be
likened to a case of a natural person who may be ill or may be of advanced age.”
“Even the danger of extinction of the corporation will not per se justify a discretionary execution unless there are showings of other good reasons, such as for instance, impending insolvency of the adverse party or the appeal being patently dilatory. Hence, it is not within competence of the trial court, in resolving a motion for execution pending appeal, to rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and rely on the same as its basis for finding good reason to grant the motion. Only an appellate court can appreciate the dilatory intent of an appeal as an additional good reason in upholding an order for execution pending appeal which may have been issued by the trial court for other good reasons, or in cases where the motion for execution pending appeal is filed with the appellate court in accordance with Section 2, paragraph (a), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court.”
5.)When the successful party files a BOND;
Q: Here is a controversial question: How about an instance when the winning party offers to put up a bond. He says; “Alright, I am asking for an
order pending appeal. I will put up a bond to answer for any damages that the defendant may suffer in the event that he wins the appeal.”
A: In the old case of HACIENDA NAVARRA vs. LABRADOR (65 Phil 635), the SC simply implied that there is a good ground. HOWEVER, the SC denied that implication in later cases. Among which were the cases of ROXAS vs. CA (157 SCRA 370) and PNB vs. PUNO, (170 SCRA 229) and PHOTOQUICK INC. vs. LAPENA, JR. (195 SCRA 66).
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. PUNO 170 SCRA 229
HELD: “The mere filing of a bond would not entitle the prevailing
party to an execution pending appeal. Whatever doubts may have been generated by early decisions involving this matter, starting with
Hacienda Navarra, Inc. vs. Labrador, et al., have been clarified in Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.”
“To consider the mere posting of a bond a ‘good reason’ would precisely make immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal ROUTINARY, the rule rather than the exception. Judgments would be executed immediately, as a matter of course, once rendered, if all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bond to answer
for the damages that might result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat, neither contemplated nor intended by law.”
So, we might say that the posting of a bond would be an ADDITIONAL GOOD REASON but it is NOT BY ITSELF a good reason. So, the case of
HACIENDA NAVARRA VS. LABRADOR has been misinterpreted.
The second paragraph of Section 2 [a]:
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Q: Where can you file your motion for execution pending appeal? A: It DEPENDS:
1.) TRIAL COURT - while it has jurisdiction over the case and the court is still in possession of the records of the case. Meaning: (1.) the judgment has not yet become final - it is still within the 15 day period, and (2.) the court still is in possession of the records of the case.
2.) APPELLATE COURT – after the trial court has already lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may already be filed in the appellate court.
So, if the RTC has no more jurisdiction, then doon ka na mag-file ng motion sa CA.
Q: When will the court lose jurisdiction over the case ?
A: With regard to execution pending appeal, you can correlate this with RULE 41, SECTION 9 , to wit:
Rule 41, Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - A party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to his with respect to the subject matter thereof upon approval of the record of appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof
upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record of the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (9a)
The phrase “order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule
39” was not there in the Old Rules. Now, that has been added and it jives with
Section 2 paragraph (a). Now, for as long as the motion is filed, before the court loses jurisdiction and provided that the records are still with the trial court , even if the appeal is subsequently perfected, it can still act on the motion for execution pending appeal.
Now, let us go back to Section 2, Rule 39 on execution of several, separate or partial judgments – meaning, there are several judgments arising from the same case:
Rule 39, Section 2 [b]:
b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several, separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. (2a)
Let us correlate this provision with Rule 36, Sections 4 and 5 AND Rule 37, section 8:
RULE 36, Sec. 4. Several judgments. - In an action against several defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is proper, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others. (4)
RULE 36, Sec. 5. Separate judgments. - When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out
subject matter of the claim, may render a separate
judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment
shall terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by order may stay its enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered. (5a)
RULE 37, Sec. 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. - When less than all of the issues are ordered retried, the court may either enter a judgment or final order as to the rest, or stay the
enforcement of such judgment or final order until after the new trial. (7a)
Q: Can there be two or more judgments arising out of one case? A: YES. (Rule 36, Sections 4 and 5)
Q: Can the first judgment be immediately executed while waiting for rendition of the second judgment?
A: Generally, the court will decide. If the court agrees, there has to be a good reason.
There is one interesting case on execution pending appeal – the case of
RCPI vs. LANTIN 134 SCRA 395
FACTS: The case of Lantin was an action for damages. The court
awarded the plaintiff said damages. So, the plaintiff moved for discretionary execution.
ISSUE: Whether or not execution pending appeal is proper in a
judgment for damages.
HELD: The execution pending appeal may be proper for enforcing
the collection of ACTUAL DAMAGES, but it is not proper to enforce the payment of moral or exemplary damages. So, this is where the SC distinguished.
Why is it that execution pending appeal is proper for the collection of actual damages? In actual or compensatory damages, the amount is certain. Normally, there are receipts. The amount is based on evidence.
But the award for moral or exemplary damages is uncertain and indefinite. It is based on abstract factors like sleepless nights, besmirched reputation. It is hard to quantify it based on evidence.
The SC said, in many cases the trial court awards a huge amount for exemplary damages but on appeal, the CA refused to award or totally eliminate the award. So, if the award of moral or exemplary damages is not certain or fixed, the execution pending appeal may not be proper to enforce its execution.
Sec. 3. Stay of discretionary execution. - Discretionary execution issued under the preceding section may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against whom it is directed, conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part. The bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. (3a)
Q: Now, assuming that there is an execution pending appeal in favor of the plaintiff under Section 2 and I am the defendant, is there a way for me to stop the execution pending appeal?
A: Your remedy is to apply Section 3. The defendant will now ask the court to fix a supersedeas bond to stop the execution pending appeal. The bond will answer for any damages that the plaintiff may suffer if the defendant’s appeal is not meritorious.
And once the supersedeas bond is filed, the court has to withdraw the execution pending appeal. Supersedeas bond under Section 3 is conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part.
GENERAL RULE: When a defendant puts up a supersedeas bond, the court shall recall the execution pending appeal because discretionary execution is the exception rather than the general rule.
EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the filing of the supersedeas bond by the appellant, execution pending appeal may still be granted by the court IF THERE ARE SPECIAL AND COMPELLING REASONS justifying the same outweighing the security offered by the supersedeas bond. (De Leon vs. Soriano, 95 Phil. 806)
EXAMPLE OF EXCEPTION: Judgment for SUPPORT. The same may be executed pending appeal even notwithstanding the filing of a supersedeas bond
should not be delayed. What is the use of the supersedeas bond when the need of the plaintiff is today and not 5 or 6 weeks from now?
Alright, let us go to the next important classification of execution. The other classification as to the manner of enforcement could be by MOTION or by INDEPENDENT ACTION.
EXECUTION BY MOTION
EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. (6a)
Q: How do you execute a judgment?
A: You file a motion for execution before the same court which rendered the judgment.
Q: How is the execution enforced?
A: There are two 2 modes under Section 6:
1.) Execution by motion – within five (5) years from the date of its entry; and
2.) Execution by independent action if the five year period to execute by motion has elapsed with no motion having been filed and before it is barred by the statute of limitations..
Execution BY MOTION means that the prevailing party shall ask the court to issue a writ of execution by simply filing a motion in the same case.
EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff and I have a judgment here against the defendant. I do not know of any assets of the defendant because the defendant for the meantime is as poor as a rat. But after a certain period of time he becomes a wealthy man. All I have to do is to file a motion and the court will order the execution, provided the motion is filed within 5 years from the date of the entry of judgment. The date of the entry of judgment and the date of finality are the same (Rule 36, Section 2).
Lifetime of a writ of execution
The writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion (Sec. 14). Hence, the writ is enforceable within the five-year period from entry of judgment as provided for in Sec. 6 because within that period, the writ may be enforced by motion. This is an amendment to the old rule (Sec. 11 R 39) which provided that the lifetime of the writ was 60 days from the receipt of the writ by the officer required to enforce it.
Q: Suppose the defendant becomes rich after 5 years, can I still file a motion to execute?
A: No more, because execution by motion must be filed within 5 years only from the date of its entry. If the judgment was not executed within the 5-year period, the judgment has become dormant.
A writ of execution issued by motion of the prevailing party after five (5) years from the date of entry of the judgment is null and void. There is then a need for the prevailing party to file an independent action for the revival of the judgment before the action is barred by the statute of limitations (Tag Fibers, Inc. vs. NLRC 344 SCRA 29; Terry vs. People 314 SCRA 669).
It was held that if the writ of execution was issued and the levy made within five years from the entry of the judgment, the auction sale may be made even after the five-year period. The sale of the property and the application of the proceeds are merely the means to carry out the writ of execution and a levy already validly made. Accordingly, the levy is the essential act by which the property is set apart for the satisfaction of the judgment (Gov’t. vs Echaus 71 Phil. 318; Quiambao vs. Manila Motor Co., 3 SCRA 444). The sale must however, be made within ten years during which the judgment can be enforced (Ansaldo vs. Fidelity & Surety Company, 84 Phil. 547; Jalandoni vs. PNB 108 SCRA 102).
Q: What is a dormant judgment?
A: A DORMANT judgment is one that was not executed within 5 years. Revival of Judgment
Q: So, how can that (dormant) judgment be awaken?
A: The procedure is to file another civil action. A civil action for revival of judgment. That is what you call EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION which must be filed before it is barred by the statute of limitations. The second sentence states, “after the lapse of such time (which is 5 years) and before it is barred by
the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.”
A: According to Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, the judgment may be enforced only within ten (10) years.
The ten-year period commences to run from the finality of the judgment which is the period within which the judgment can be enforced (Art. 1152 in relation to Art. 1144[3], Civil Code). Because under the Rules, the date of the finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of entry (Sec. 2 R 36) the period shall run also from the date of entry of the judgment.
An action for revival of judgment presupposes that the same can no longer be enforced by mere motion. This means that from the date of the finality of the judgment no motion was filed for the execution of said judgment, thus, the need for its enforcement by action.
The action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party (Saligumba vs. Palanog GR 143365 December 4, 2008).
The action to revive a judgment must be filed within ten years from the date the judgment becomes final because an action to enforce a judgment prescribes in ten years from the finality of the judgment (Art. 1144[3] in relation to Art. 1152, Civil Code of the Philippines). Since the date of the finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of the entry (Sec. 2 R 36), the prescriptive period shall run from the date of entry of the judgment.
When a judgment is revived under Section 6, such revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within 5 years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action also before it is barred by the statute of limitations (Sec. 6).
Revived judgment a new judgment
A revived judgment is deemed a new judgment separate and distinct from the original judgment. It is not a continuation of the original judgment. The action to revive the judgment is a new action and results in a new judgment constituting a new cause of action with a new period of limitation. Hence, the ten (10) year period to revive the revived judgment shall commence to run from the date of the finality of the revived judgment and not from the date of finality of the old, original judgment (PNB vs. Bondoc 14 SCRA 770).
While this ruling was abandoned in PNB vs. Deloso 23 SCRA 266 and Luzon Surety Co. Inc. vs. IAC GR 72645 June 30, 1987, which held that the ten-year period should run from the finality of the original judgment and not from the finality of the revived judgment, the ruling in Bondoc was resurrected in the
present provision of Section 6 which declares in its last sentence that “The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.”
The SC had long ago ruled that after the lapse of five (5) years, the judgment “is reduced to a mere right of action in favor of the person whom it favors which must be enforced, as are all ordinary actions, by the institution of a complaint in the regular form” (Compana General de Tobacos vs. Martinez and Nolan 29 Phil. 515; Aldeguer vs. Gemelo 68 Phil. 421).
If the prevailing party fails to have the decision enforced by a motion after the lapse of five years from the date of entry of the judgment, the said judgment is reduced to a right of action which must be enforced by the institution of the complaint in a regular court within ten years from the time the judgment became final (Bausa vs. Heirs of Juan Dino GR 167281 August 28, 2008).
Action for Revival not to reopen any issue affecting the merits of the judgment
An action for revival of judgment is not intended to reopen any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor’s case nor the propriety or the correctness of the first judgment. It is a new and independent action wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered (Juco vs. Heirs of Tomas Siy Chung Fu GR 150233 February 16, 2005; Saligumba vs. Palanog, supra). It is an “original action, not a mere incident of the primitive suit or a mere auxiliary or supplemental remedy” (Aldeguer vs. Gemelo 68 Phil. 421).
The purpose of the new action is not to reexamine and retry issues already decided and the cause of action of this new action is the judgment to be revived and no identity of causes of action can be said to exist between the first and the second actions (Caina vs. CA GR 114393 Dec. 14 1994). GThe consideration of any issue affecting matters that could have been raised in the previous case must be deemed as definitely foreclosed (Phil. Reconstruction Corp. Inc. Vs. Aparente 45 SCRA 217). It is not meant to retry the case all over again (Enriquez vs. CA 372 SCRA 372).
Riano’s comment:
If the action to revive a judgment (or an action upon a judgment is according to Aldeguer vs. Gemelo a new cause of action and not a continuation of the old, it should not, in this sense, be dependent upon the previous action for its
jurisdictional requirements and does not necessarily have to be filed in the same court which rendered the judgment.
It is submitted that the new action, i.e.., to revive the judgment would necessarily raise the fundamental issues of whether or not the plaintiff has a right to have the judgment revived and to have a new right of enforcement from its revival, issues that by nature are incapable of pecuniary estimation. Inevitably, a litigant may find himself in a situation where he files the action in the RTC to revive a judgment rendered by a MTC.
It is submitted that it is in this light that the 1957 case of Torrefranca et al., vs. Albiso 102 Phil. 732 should be re-examined.
The facts had their origins in an action to revive a judgment filed in the same court which, more than five years ago, rendered a judgment in an action for forcible entry against the defendant. The defendant opposed the action but the justice of the court declared the judgment revived. The subsequent appeal to the CFI was dismissed and plaintiff went to the SC on a question of law – whether or not a justice of the peace has the authority to revive its own judgment.
The SC ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1948 gave justice of peace courts jurisdiction over actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer “and also empowers them … to issue all processes necessary to enforce their judgments and orders. Needless to say, the revival of a judgment is a necessary step in its enforcement…”
The rationale of Torrefranca in sustaining the power of the court to revive its own judgment is clearly predicated on the jurisdiction of the trial court over the case of forcible entry. The ruling obviously assumes that the revived judgment is a continuation of the old judgment and viewed the revival of the judgment as merely incidental to or ancillary to the execution of the original judgment.
This rationale does not fall squarely with the more recent pronouncements of the Court that an action to revive a judgment is a new cause of action and not a mere continuation of the original action.
Venue of revival of judgment action-
In Infante vs. Aran Builders Inc. GR 156596, August 24, 2007, the Court xplained thus:
“… the proper venue depends on the determination of whether the present action for revival of judgment is a real action or a personal action … if the action for revival of judgment affects title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, then it is a real action that must be filed with the court of the place where the real property is located. If such action does not fall under the category of real actions, it is then a personal action that may be filed with the court of the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides…”
When the five-year period to execute by motion may be interrupted
In many instances, the delays in the execution of the judgment were through causes clearly attributable to the judgment debtor as when he employs legal maneuvers to block the enforcement of the judgment. Delays attributable to the defendant have the effect of suspending the running of the prescriptive period for the enforcement of the judgment (Potenciano vs. Mariano 93 SCRA 463; Camacho vs. CA 287 SCRA 611; Republic vs. CA 260 SCRA 344).
There are instances where the Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years upon meritorious grounds. These exceptions have one common denominator, and that is, the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage. It has been held that in computing the time limit for enforcing a final judgment, the general rule is that the time when the execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction, or by the taking of an appeal or writ of error, shall not be included. Thus, the time during which execution is stayed should be excluded, and the said time will be extended by any delay occasioned by the debtor as when the writ of execution cannot be enforced within the five-year period because the debtor filed petitions in the CA and in the SC challenging the trial court’s judgment as well as the writ of execution. Such petitions suspended or interrupted the further enforcement of the writ (Yau vs. Silverio GR 158848; Macapagal vs. Gako GR 171994, February 4, 2008).
The period may also be interrupted by the agreement of the parties to suspend the enforcement of the judgment (Torralba vs. de los Angeles 96 SCRA 69; Macias vs. Lim 431 SCRA 20).
When 5 and 10 year periods do not apply
The periods do not apply to (a) special proceedings, such as land registration and cadastral cases, wherein the right to ask for a writ of possession does not prescribe (Rodil vs. Benedicto 95 SCRA 137; (b) judgments for support which do not become dormant and which can always be executed by motion despite lapse of the five-year period because the obligation is a continuing one and the court never loses jurisdiction to enforce the same (Canonizado vs. Benitez 127 SCRA 610).