GR 91885; (August, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91885 August 7, 1996
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LAUREANO BROS., CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
The Republic obtained a final and executory judgment against Laureano Bros., Co., Inc. on July 27, 1968. A writ of execution was issued on September 2, 1972. To satisfy the judgment, the attached property of the judgment debtor was sold in 1973. However, the Republic, through NEDA, disapproved the sale and filed an action for its annulment, arguing the price was too low. This legal challenge progressed through the Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court, which upheld the sale’s validity in 1984. Following this finality, the Republic, on May 12, 1986, filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution to compel the turnover of the sale’s proceeds. The trial court and the Court of Appeals denied this motion, ruling that the five-year period for execution by motion under the Rules had lapsed and was not interrupted by the pendency of the annulment case.
ISSUE
Whether the period during which the legality of the sale of the judgment debtor’s property was being contested in the appellate courts interrupted the running of the five-year period for enforcing a judgment by motion.
RULING
Yes, the period was interrupted. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on established exceptions to the five-year rule for execution by motion under Rule 39. The Court reiterated that this period is subject to interruption or extension when the delay is attributable to the judgment debtor’s actions or for its benefit. Here, the protracted litigation over the validity of the sale was initiated by the Republic’s own act of disapproving it and filing for annulment. This judicial challenge, which lasted over a decade, effectively suspended the enforcement of the writ of execution. To compute the five-year period from the finality of the original judgment without excluding this interval would be inequitable, as the judgment creditor (the Republic) would be penalized for pursuing a remedy it believed was necessary to protect the judgment’s value. The delay was not due to the creditor’s negligence but was a direct consequence of its resort to the courts to question the execution sale. Therefore, the time during which the annulment case was pending is excluded from the computation, making the 1986 motion for execution timely. The Court ordered the issuance of the writ.