G.R. No. L-10920, December 29, 1958
EUGENIO ESTAYO, protestant-appellant, vs. JOSE L. DE GUZMAN, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

On December 14, 1938, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan declared protestant Eugenio Estayo duly elected as provincial board member against protestee Jose L. de Guzman and ordered the latter to pay costs. The protestee appealed. On January 18, 1939, the protestee and several bondsmen filed an appeal bond of P2,000, secured by a mortgage on five parcels of land. On May 31, 1940, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with costs against the protestee. The Supreme Court denied the protestee’s petition for review on July 19, 1940, and entry of judgment was made on August 6, 1940. The protestant filed his bill of costs only on November 1, 1946. The protestee objected on December 10, 1946. On July 5, 1949, the protestant’s counsel filed a notice to move for assessment of costs on July 14, 1949, but by agreement, the court deferred consideration. On August 20, 1954, the protestee petitioned for release of the appeal bond and cancellation of the mortgage encumbrance. The protestant objected on August 24, 1954, and pressed for approval of his bill of costs. On December 7, 1955, the court ordered the release of the appeal bond. The protestant’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 13, 1956, prompting this appeal. The protestant, Eugenio Estayo, died during the pendency of the appeal, and his widow and daughter were substituted as appellants.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in releasing the appeal bond and, by implication, in denying the protestant’s claim for costs and incidental expenses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order releasing the appeal bond and modified it to grant authority to cancel the mortgage encumbrance. The Court held that costs and incidental expenses are part of the judgment, and it is the duty of the prevailing party to submit a bill of costs promptly for taxation. Entry of judgment was made on August 6, 1940. The protestant filed his bill of costs only on November 1, 1946, and did not actively press for its taxation until his objection to the bond release on August 24, 1954. The protestant thus slept on his right and failed to execute the judgment for costs within the five-year period from entry of judgment as provided under Section 6, Rule 39 (formerly sections 443 and 447 of Act No. 190). The Court rejected the protestant’s arguments that the political nature of the case or the Japanese occupation prevented execution, noting that the motion was merely for costs (the term of office having ended) and that the Moratorium Law, even if applied, would not save the claim from being time-barred. Regarding the mortgage on the appeal bond, the Court applied Article 1142 of the New Civil Code, which prescribes a mortgage action after ten years. The new Code took effect on August 30, 1950. From August 6, 1940 (when the action to enforce the mortgage became effective) to August 30, 1950, more than ten years had elapsed. Applying the transitory provision (Article 2252), the ten-year prescriptive period under the New Civil Code governed. Therefore, the mortgage action had prescribed, and the encumbrance could be cancelled. The appealed order was affirmed as modified.