G.R. No. 31814 , August 9, 1929
FELIX ARAMBULO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF THE FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA and THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA, respondents.

FACTS

On November 27, 1914, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna rendered a judgment in favor of the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, and against Felix Arambulo, ordering him to vacate a parcel of land. The judgment became final. On March 24, 1915, within five years from the entry of judgment, the provincial fiscal, on behalf of the municipality, filed a motion praying for the issuance of a writ of execution. However, no writ was issued following this motion. Nearly fourteen years later, on May 27, 1929, the provincial fiscal filed another motion for execution. The CFI, through Vacation Judge Mariano A. Albert, granted the motion in an order dated May 16, 1929, ruling that the period for execution had been interrupted by the 1915 motion. Arambulo filed a petition for certiorari to annul the 1929 order.

ISSUE

Whether the mere filing of a motion for execution within the five-year period under Section 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ) interrupts the prescriptive period, thereby allowing the court to issue a writ of execution after the lapse of more than five years from the entry of judgment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the CFI’s order of May 16, 1929, null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court held that under Section 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party entitled to a judgment may “have a writ of execution” issued within five years after its entry. The term “have” implies not merely praying for the writ but actually obtaining it within the prescribed period. The municipality’s 1915 motion only prayed for execution but did not result in the issuance of the writ. Citing Compañia General de Tabacos vs. Martinez (17 Phil. 160), the Court ruled that the mere filing of a motion, without taking the necessary steps to secure the writ, does not interrupt the five-year prescriptive period. Consequently, when the CFI issued the order for execution in 1929well beyond the five-year periodit acted without jurisdiction. The prescriptive period had already lapsed, and the judgment could no longer be enforced by execution.