G.R. No. L-28301 March 30, 1970
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN DELOSO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On January 25, 1951, a judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. 1044 ordering defendants Juan Deloso, Francisco Imperial, and Magno Jamito to pay jointly and severally the Philippine National Bank (PNB) the sum of P600.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. This judgment was not executed within five years from its finality. On June 28, 1960, PNB filed an action (Civil Case No. 4953) with the same court for revival of the judgment. This case was dismissed on September 30, 1964, for lack of jurisdiction, as the amount involved fell under the original jurisdiction of the City Court of Naga pursuant to Republic Act No. 2613 . Subsequently, on January 11, 1965, PNB filed a similar action for revival with the City Court of Naga. This action was dismissed on August 18, 1966, on the ground of prescription, more than ten years having elapsed from the date the judgment became final. PNB’s motion for reconsideration was denied. PNB appealed to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, which also dismissed the appeal on the ground of prescription, finding that the judgment became final on February 26, 1951, and the action for revival was filed over thirteen years later.

ISSUE

1. Whether the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 4953 (which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) constituted a written extrajudicial demand that interrupted the ten-year prescriptive period for an action to revive a judgment under Article 1155 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether the ten-year prescriptive period for an action to revive a judgment under Article 1144 of the Civil Code commences to run only from the expiration of the five-year period within which a judgment may be executed by motion under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that the complaint in Civil Case No. 4953, even if considered a written extrajudicial demand, could not interrupt the prescription of the action to revive the judgment. Citing Philippine National Bank vs. Osete and Philippine National Bank vs. Pacific Commission House, the Court ruled that Article 1155 of the Civil Code, which provides for interruption of prescription by filing an action or making a written extrajudicial demand, refers to actions to collect debts not based on a judgment. An action to revive a judgment is based on the judgment itself, not on the original obligation, and thus the interruption rules under Article 1155 do not apply.
2. No. The Supreme Court, reiterating the doctrine in Gutierrez Hermanos vs. De la Riva, held that the ten-year prescriptive period for an action to revive a judgment under Article 1144 commences to run from the date the judgment becomes final and executory, not from the expiration of the five-year period for execution by motion. The Court affirmed that the right to enforce a judgment exists from its finality, and the action for revival must be brought within ten years from that date. To hold otherwise would extend the prescriptive period to fifteen years, contrary to Article 1144. The order of dismissal was affirmed.