G.R. No. L-29317. May 29, 1971.
MARCELA SABULAO VDA. DE DECENA, petitioner, vs. HON. WALFREDO DE LOS ANGELES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IV, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of RIZAL and SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an ejectment suit, Civil Case No. Q-5123, filed by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) against Joaquin Decena over a lot in Quezon City. The court rendered a final decision on May 15, 1961, ordering Decena and all persons claiming under him to vacate the premises. After the judgment became final, the court issued a writ of execution on March 13, 1964, and later an order of demolition on June 15, 1967. The sheriff reportedly demolished a house on the lot on July 20, 1967.
Petitioner Marcela Sabulao Vda. de Decena, the mother of Joaquin Decena, claimed to be in actual possession of the lot and its improvements. She was not a party to the original ejectment case. She moved to quash the demolition order, arguing the judgment could not bind her as she was not impleaded. The court denied her motion. Subsequently, on June 24, 1968, the court issued another demolition order based on PHHC’s motion alleging that the petitioner had rebuilt or remained on the lot.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent court retained jurisdiction to issue the demolition order of June 24, 1968, more than five years after the judgment in the ejectment case became final.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the demolition order. The legal logic is anchored on the rules governing the execution of final judgments. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date it becomes final. After the lapse of this five-year period, the judgment becomes dormant and can no longer be enforced by a mere motion in the same case. The party must instead institute a separate and independent action to revive the judgment.
The Court meticulously computed the timeline. The judgment in Civil Case No. Q-5123 became final on July 14, 1961. The challenged demolition order was issued on June 24, 1968—more than five years later (specifically, six years, eleven months, and ten days). Consequently, the trial court had lost jurisdiction to order execution by mere motion. The proper remedy for PHHC was to file a revival action, for which the prescriptive period is ten years under Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code. The Court rejected PHHC’s argument that the petitioner waived this rule, emphasizing that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be bestowed by the parties’ consent or inaction. Therefore, the order was void for having been issued without jurisdiction. The Court enjoined further execution steps unless the judgment was first duly revived in a proper action.