G.R. No. L-9840; February 12, 1915
COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE FELIX MARTINEZ, sheriff of Occidental Negros, and RICARDO NOLAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On March 13, 1885, Marcelo Corteza sued Tomas de Leon. An attachment was levied on 100 hectares of land owned by De Leon. On May 7, 1889, De Leon sold the land (Hacienda Velez-Malaga) to Jose Domingo Frias, subject to the existing attachment. On June 28, 1889, judgment was rendered against De Leon, ordering the sale of the attached land. The land was subsequently sold to Manuel Giner (1900) and then to the plaintiff, Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (1908), with all deeds duly registered.

In 1908, an attempt to execute the 1889 judgment via a writ of execution was annulled by this Court. Subsequently, on November 23, 1910, Jose F. Martinez, an assignee of the 1889 judgment, filed a new action under Section 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce the judgment after more than five years. On August 19, 1911, a new judgment was rendered against De Leon for P5,663.38. Based on this 1911 judgment, Martinez caused the sheriff to levy upon and sell the same 100 hectares, now owned by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff then filed this action to annul the sale and quiet its title.

ISSUE:
Did the judgment rendered on August 19, 1911, in the action to enforce the 1889 judgment under Section 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revive the original attachment lien on the land, thereby making it subject to execution sale to satisfy the 1911 judgment?

RULING:
No. The Court held that the 1911 judgment did not revive the original attachment lien. An action under Section 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an ordinary action for the enforcement of a judgment after five years. It results in a new and independent judgment. This new judgment does not automatically reinvest or continue any ancillary remedies from the old judgment, such as an attachment lien. The creditor’s rights under the new judgment are confined to those granted by the new judgment itself. Since the 1911 judgment was silent regarding any lien or attachment, it created no lien on the property. The land, having been sold to an innocent purchaser for value (the plaintiff company) long before the 1911 action, was no longer property of the judgment debtor (De Leon) and was therefore not subject to levy and sale to satisfy the 1911 judgment. The sale by the sheriff was declared null and void.