G.R. No. L-15467; January 31, 1963
JESUS LANCITA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. GONZALO MAGBANUA, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On July 17, 1951, the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court of Buluan, Cotabato, rendered a judgment in a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 7) in favor of respondents Gonzalo and Alfredo Magbanua against petitioners Jesus Lancita, et al., ordering the latter to vacate the land and pay damages. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on August 21, 1951. On October 24, 1951, the JP Court granted the motion, set the case for new trial, and ordered a stay of the July 17 decision. However, on November 27, 1951, after petitioners failed to appear, the court issued an order reviving and affirming its original July 17 judgment.
On November 26, 1956, respondents filed a motion for an alias writ of execution. Petitioners opposed, arguing the five-year period for execution by motion had lapsed, counting from the July 17, 1951 judgment. The JP court granted the alias writ on March 27, 1957. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cotabato, which upheld the alias writ. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this direct appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the alias writ of execution issued on March 27, 1957, pursuant to a motion filed on November 26, 1956, was issued within the five-year prescriptive period for execution of a judgment by mere motion.

RULING

Yes, the alias writ was issued within the prescriptive period. The Supreme Court ruled that the five-year period for execution by motion under Rule 39, Section 6, did not commence on July 17, 1951. The filing of the motion for reconsideration and the subsequent order of the JP Court on October 24, 1951, staying the execution of the July 17 judgment, legally suspended the finality of that judgment. The judgment became final only on November 27, 1951, when the court issued its order reviving the original decision after petitioners’ non-appearance. Counting from November 27, 1951, the motion for alias writ filed on November 26, 1956, was filed just one day before the expiration of five years, thus well within the period.
The Court further held that even if the computation started from July 17, 1951, the period was tolled or suspended by the various orders of execution previously issued but not enforced due to petitioners’ resistance, as well as by petitioners’ own acts, such as seeking extensions to vacate. The general rule is that the time during which execution is stayed or delayed by the judgment debtor’s acts is excluded in computing the prescriptive period. Respondents did not sleep on their rights; they actively sought execution, but enforcement was hindered by petitioners’ contumacy. Therefore, the JP Court did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ. The appealed orders were affirmed.