G.R. No. 172660; August 24, 2011
EUGENIO BASBAS, TEOFILO ARAS, RUFINO ARAS, GERVACIO BASBAS, ISMAEL ARAS, EUGENIO ARAS, SIMFRONIO ARAS, FELICIANO ARAS, ROSITA ARAS, EUGENIO BASBAS, JR. and SPOUSES PABLITO BASARTE and MARCELINA BASBAS BASARTE, Petitioners, vs. BEATA SAYSON and ROBERTO SAYSON, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

On September 2, 1976, respondents Beata Sayson and her husband Roberto Sayson, Sr. filed a Petition for Registration of an agricultural land in Matag-ob, Leyte, docketed as Land Registration Case No. 0-177, opposed by petitioners Eugenio Basbas, Sr., Teofilo Aras, and Rufino Aras. On March 22, 1979, the Court of First Instance (CFI) adjudicated the land to the spouses Sayson. The oppositors appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 66541, which affirmed the CFI Decision in a July 24, 1985 Decision that became final and executory on August 21, 1985. An Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2496 was issued to the spouses Sayson on September 17, 1986. A Writ of Possession (November 21, 1985) and an Alias Writ of Possession (April 6, 1989) could not be implemented due to the refusal of Eugenio Basbas, Sr. and his son Eugenio Basbas, Jr., who demanded a relocation survey. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered a relocation survey.
In an Order dated September 13, 1989, the RTC approved the Commissioner’s Report and ordered the original oppositors (Eugenio Basbas, Sr., Teofilo Aras, Rufino Aras) as well as their co-petitioners Gervacio Basbas, Ismael Aras, Eugenio Aras, Simfronio Aras, Feliciano Aras, Rosita Aras, and Eugenio Basbas, Jr. to vacate the subject property. This September 13, 1989 Order was not implemented within the five-year period from its finality.
Thus, on August 18, 1995, respondent Beata Sayson and her son Roberto Sayson, Jr. (as successor-in-interest) filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment before the RTC of Ormoc City, docketed as Civil Case No. 3312-0. Impleaded as defendants were the aforementioned petitioners and the spouses Pablito Basarte and Marcelina Basbas Basarte, who were allegedly also harvesting coconuts from the property. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of no cause of action, which was denied. They then filed an Answer with Counterclaim, admitting the material facts regarding the prior judgments and orders but contesting their inclusion as parties.
The RTC, in an Order dated May 21, 2001, granted the complaint for revival of judgment. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated February 17, 2004, affirmed the RTC Order in toto. The CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 19, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s Order granting the complaint for revival of judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that an action for revival of judgment is governed by Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows a judgment obligee to file an action to revive a judgment before it is barred by prescription, provided no execution has been issued within five years from its entry. The September 13, 1989 RTC Order, which implemented the final and executory CA Decision in the land registration case, was a judgment subject to execution. Since this Order was not executed within five years from its finality, the respondents properly filed an action for its revival within ten years from the time the right of action accrued.
The Court found that the petitioners, including those not originally named as oppositors in the land registration case but who were ordered to vacate in the September 13, 1989 Order and were in possession of the property, were proper parties to the revival action. Their continued possession of the land made them indispensable parties for the complete relief of restoring possession to the respondents. The Court also ruled that the respondents had the legal capacity to sue, as Beata Sayson was a registered co-owner and Roberto Sayson, Jr. was a successor-in-interest. The defense of prescription was unavailing, as the revival action was filed within the prescriptive period. The Court further held that the petitioners’ arguments regarding the alleged nullity of the September 13, 1989 Order and the identity of the land were barred by res judicata, as these matters had been conclusively settled in the final and executory CA Decision in the land registration case.