600 Phil. 407
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is rendered:The Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision was denied by Order of September 15, 1976. The decision having become final and executory, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court but it appears that it was not implemented.[4]No pronouncement as to cost.
- ordering plaintiff [Querubin] to renounce possession of the little over one hectare indicated as Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A-3 on Exhibit A for plaintiff and Exhibit 5 for defendant;
- ordering plaintiff to limit his fishpond operation on the area North and Northeast of the original bank (before encroachment) of the Balabag River in Dumangas, Iloilo;
- ordering defendant to limit his fishpond operation along the curb line indicated in red pencil from point x to y on the sketch plan, Exhibit B for the plaintiff, of the area South and southeast of the original bank of the Balabag River.
Let copy of this decision be furnished the Regional Director of the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communication with offices in Iloilo City.
SO ORDERED. (Underscoring supplied)[3]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows:Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal[8] of the trial court's decision which was denied due course as it was filed beyond the reglementary period.[9] A Writ of Execution was thereupon issued.[10]SO ORDERED.[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
- The Decision rendered in Civil Case No. 8863 be revived in favor of the plaintiffs[-herein petitioners] Quesadas, Ejercito, and Asuncion after they have acquired the rights and interest of Claro San Luis by subrogation upon the termination of the lease contract of Claro San Luis in 1977 in the Decision Dated August 25, 1975 which reads as follows:
- ordering plaintiff to renounce possession of the little over one hectare indicated as Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A-3 on Exhibit A for plaintiff and Exhibit 5 for defendant;
- ordering plaintiff to limit his fishpond operation on the area North and Northeast of the original bank (before encroachment) of the Balabag River in Dumangas, Iloilo;
- ordering defendant to limit his fishpond operation along the curb line indicated in red pencil from point x to y on the sketch plan, Exhibit B for the plaintiff, of the area South and southeast of the original bank of the Balabag River.
No pronouncement as to cost.
Let copy of this decision be furnished the Regional Director of the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communication with offices in Iloilo City.
SO ORDERED.
Iloilo City, August 25, 1975.- The defendants-[herein respondents] are hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs the sum of no less than Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos a year for damages from 1977 until plaintiffs are restored to the possession of that 1-1/2 hectares more or less of Lot 225-B;
- Defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs the sum of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as attorney's fees and Two Thousand (P2,000.00) as litigation expenses every time case is called for trial;
- Defendants are ordered to pay the costs of the suit; and
- Defendants are ordered jointly and severally to return that portion of Lot 225-B covered by Original Certificate of Title No. F-24467 in the name of Epitacio Asuncion, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, Quesadas, Ejercito and Asuncion.
x x x MODIFYING the original judgment [in the forcible entry case] which has long become final and executory, rendered by Hon. Judge Sancho Y. Inserto, by requiring the defendants-petitioner[s] to pay monetary damages which was not awarded on the original judgment,and that the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff and Clerk of Court of the Iloilo City RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Writ of Execution.[13]
x x x reviving the original judgment which has long PRESCRIBE[D];
x x x x
x x x granting the ex-parte motion to serve the Writ of Execution of the revived judgment here in Digos City upon he defendant-petitioner, Eugenio Derequito[;][12] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original; CAPITALIZATION supplied);
It must be stressed that Article 1444 (3) of the New Civil Code provides that actions upon a judgment must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues. In other words, the action to revive a judgment prescribes in ten (10) years counted from the date said judgment became final or from the date of its entry. Additionally, after the lapse of five (5) years from the date of entry of judgment or the date said judgment became final and executory, and before the expiration of ten (10) years from such date, the judgment may be enforced by instituting an ordinary action alleging said judgment as the cause of action. Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that 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 records of the case at bar reveal that prescription had already set in against the original judgment because it became final and executory in 1975 and more than 30 years have already passed, thus the judgment can no longer be enforced.Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of April 12, 2007,[16] the present petition[17] was filed, faulting the appellate court
x x x x
x x x The petitioners are therefore correct in assailing the court a quo's decision since it is already unalterable and may not be modified in any respect.
Moreover, the rule is well-settled that the judgment sought to be enforced may no longer be reviewed in the new action for its enforcement, an action the purpose of which is not to re-examine and re-try the issues already decided but to revive the judgment. x x x
x x x x
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Consequently, the Decision and Order dated July 8, 2002 and January 9, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Iloilo City, are vacated and set aside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[15] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The petition is impressed with merit on procedural and substantive grounds.(a)
x x x IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND INJUNCTION IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 01489 ON THE GROUND THAT IT SUFFERED FROM BOTH SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL INFIRMITIES.(b)
x x x IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE LOWER COURT ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT, WHICH HAS LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY, BY REQUIRIING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY MONETARY DAMAGES NOT AWARDED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT.(c)
x x x IN UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS THAT PRESCRIPTION HAD ALREADY SET IN AGAINST THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY IN 1975 AND MORE THAN 30 YEARS HAVE ALREADY PASSED, THUS THE JUDGMENT CAN NO LONGER BE ENFORCED.[18]
The following actions must be commenced within ten years:Article 1152. The period for prescription of actions to demand the fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment commences from the time the judgment became final.
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.