GR 179638; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179638; July 8, 2013
HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA, SR., Petitioners, vs. PABLO R. MIRANDA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, the heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr., filed a complaint for Annulment of Titles and Specific Performance against respondent Pablo Miranda and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision on August 30, 1999, which, among other things, ordered petitioners to vacate a residential house and pay rentals to respondent, and declared the legal heirs for purposes of partitioning a lot. Petitioners did not appeal, making the judgment final. A writ of execution issued in 2001 was not implemented. In 2005, respondent filed a Petition for Revival of Judgment after the RTC denied a motion for a break-open order due to the lapse of over five years from the writ’s issuance. The RTC granted the revival.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus, which sought to compel the RTC to give due course to their Notice of Appeal from the order reviving the 1999 judgment, on the ground that the appeal was filed out of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle is that an action for revival of judgment does not modify the original final and executory judgment but merely secures a new writ for its enforcement. The RTC’s June 20, 2006 Decision granting the revival was immediately executory under Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the proper remedy from such an order of revival is not an ordinary appeal but a petition for certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on July 13, 2006, which was an incorrect and ineffectual mode. Even assuming an appeal was proper, the Court found it was filed one day late. Petitioners claimed they mailed it on July 12, 2006, but the registry receipt showed mailing on July 13, 2006, which is considered the date of filing. The RTC correctly denied the Notice of Appeal. The Petition for Mandamus before the CA was thus unavailing, as mandamus cannot compel a performance of a duty that is not clear and imperative, such as accepting a belated or wrong mode of appeal. The revival of the 1999 judgment stands.