G.R. No. L-12664-65; September 30, 1960
ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants and appellants. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL., defendant-appellees.

FACTS

Sometime in August 1931, Prudencio Anastacio acquired the homestead rights over Lot No. 3875 in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, and was issued Original Certificate of Title No. 3849 on April 7, 1936. Clemente Lazaro contested Anastacio’s title, claiming a superior right based on a prior award by the Bureau of Lands under his sales application. On August 5, 1937, the Director of Lands upheld Lazaro’s claim over portions of the lot, but no sales patent was issued to him. On October 15, 1938, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in Civil Case No. 7725, rendered a judgment cancelling Anastacio’s title and declaring the land public land covered by Lazaro’s sales application. This decision became final and executory, but no notice of lis pendens was registered, and the judgment was not annotated on the title.
In 1943, Prudencio Anastacio disappeared. On July 5, 1952, his heirs executed a deed of extra-judicial settlement adjudicating Lot No. 3875 to themselves and sold it to Fidela R. Gomez. The deed was approved and registered, leading to the cancellation of Anastacio’s title and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-12016 in Gomez’s name. On July 29, 1952, the heirs of Clemente Lazaro (the appellees) filed an action (Civil Case No. 1001) to annul the deed and cancel the titles, invoking the 1938 judgment. Fidela R. Gomez filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 1006) to recover possession of the lot from the Lazaro heirs. After a joint trial, the lower court declared the deed null and void, ordered the cancellation of the titles, and dismissed Gomez’s action. Gomez and the Anastacio heirs appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the action filed by the Lazaro heirs on July 29, 1952, to enforce the October 15, 1938 judgment in Civil Case No. 7725 has prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court.
The right of action of the Lazaro heirs is predicated solely on the 1938 judgment, which had become final and executory. Their 1952 action was filed simply to enforce that judgment. However, more than ten years had elapsed from the date the judgment became final (October 15, 1938) until the enforcement action was filed (July 29, 1952). Under the applicable law (Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 1971 of the old Civil Code; and by reference, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and Articles 1144 and 1152 of the new Civil Code), an action upon a judgment must be brought within ten years from the date it becomes final. The defense of prescription is therefore sustained. The Court cited the principle that one cannot sleep on one’s rights for over a decade and expect them to be preserved.
Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to address other issues. The appealed decision was reversed. The Lazaro heirs (defendants-appellees in Civil Case No. 1006) were ordered to vacate Lot No. 3875 and surrender possession to plaintiff-appellant Fidela R. Gomez. No costs were awarded.