G.R. No. 207887 . March 14, 2022
LINO DOMILOS, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOHN AND DOROTHEA PASTOR, AND JOSEPH L. PASTOR, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

In 1953, Victoriano Domilos acquired possession of a parcel of land in Baguio City. In 1976, he transferred his rights to his son, petitioner Lino Domilos. In March 1976, Sergio Nabunat and his family, including his mother-in-law Can-ay Palichang, built a house on the land without Lino’s consent. Lino filed a forcible entry case, which resulted in a 1977 Decision in his favor, ordering Nabunat to vacate and demolish his house. Writs of Execution were issued, and the house was demolished. On November 17, 1986, Lino and Palichang entered into a Compromise Agreement, dividing the property among five parties: Lino (two portions totaling 6,000 sq.m.), Palichang (3,000 sq.m.), Nabunat and his wife (3,000 sq.m.), and Atty. Basilio Rupisan (3,000 sq.m. for lawyer’s fees). From 1987 to 1989, portions of the property were sold to various parties, including respondents Spouses John and Dorothea Pastor and Joseph L. Pastor, who bought portions from the Nabunats. On May 9, 1989, Lino filed a motion for a 4th Alias Writ of Execution to enforce the 1977 Decision. On May 15, 1989, Lino and Palichang executed a Revocation and Cancellation of the Compromise Agreement. The writ was granted and executed, leading to the demolition of some of the Pastors’ properties. The Pastors filed a suit for annulment of the order and writ, revocation of the compromise agreement, and recovery of possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Pastors, declaring them the rightful owners of the properties they purchased. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision which declared the respondents as the rightful owners of the subject properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the 1977 Decision in the forcible entry case had become stale and could no longer be enforced by a mere motion for execution after the lapse of five years from its finality, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The right to enforce the judgment by motion had prescribed. Furthermore, the Compromise Agreement of November 17, 1986, novated the 1977 Decision, as it created new rights and obligations for the parties, superseding the previous judgment. The subsequent revocation of the compromise agreement by Lino and Palichang in 1989 did not restore the efficacy of the 1977 Decision. The Pastors, as buyers of portions of the property from the Nabunats who acquired rights under the compromise agreement, derived lawful rights over the properties. Thus, the issuance of the 4th Alias Writ of Execution based on the stale judgment and after the compromise agreement had novated the parties’ obligations was invalid. The Pastors were correctly declared to have acquired lawful rights over the subject properties.