G.R. No. L-20527, L-20528, L-20527; August 31, 1967
VICENTE Y. REALIZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GASPAR DUARTE, defendant-appellant; VICENTE Y. REALIZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. URBANO DEBEVAR, defendant-appellant; VICENTE Y. REALIZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS ARPA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Vicente Y. Realiza filed separate actions for forcible entry and detainer against Jesus Arpa, Gaspar Duarte, and Urbano Debevar in the Justice of the Peace Court of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte. The court decided in favor of Realiza, ordering each defendant to vacate the land they occupied and pay monthly rentals. After the decisions became final, writs of execution were issued, but the sheriff’s returns indicated the defendants refused to vacate and remained in possession. More than five years but before ten years after the entry of final judgment, Realiza filed three separate actions in the Justice of the Peace Court of New Piñan to enforce and revive the judgments. The court decreed the revival of the judgments. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte affirmed the decisions based on stipulated facts, which included that the defendants did not vacate the premises and that Duarte’s homestead application was approved by the Bureau of Lands on May 31, 1954, after the entry of judgment. The defendants appealed, contending the judgments were satisfied and could not be revived, and that as homesteaders, they were entitled to possession.

ISSUE

1. Whether the judgments in the forcible entry and detainer cases could be revived despite the defendants’ refusal to vacate.
2. Whether the defendants, as alleged homesteaders, are entitled to possession of the land and immune from ejectment.
3. Whether the approval of Gaspar Duarte’s homestead application after the entry of judgment constitutes a valid defense against the revival of the judgment for possession.

RULING

1. The judgments could be revived. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment may be enforced by action within ten years from its finality if not executed by motion within five years. Since the defendants did not vacate the premises, the writs of execution were not fully satisfied, and Realiza had the right to bring an independent action for revival within the ten-year period.
2. For defendants Urbano Debevar and Jesus Arpa, their mere designation as “homesteaders” in the stipulation, without proof of filed or approved homestead applications by the competent authority, did not legalize their possession or convert them into lawful possessors. Their claim could not nullify the final judgment of ouster.
3. For defendant Gaspar Duarte, the approval of his homestead application by the Director of Lands on May 31, 1954, after the entry of judgment, constituted a supervening event that changed the relationship of the parties. Following precedents, in an action for revival of judgment, defenses based on facts occurring after the judgment, such as the legalization of possession through a homestead grant, may be set up. The approval legalized Duarte’s possession, providing a justiciable defense against the revival of the judgment for possession. However, the monetary aspect of the judgment remained enforceable. Accordingly, the decision against Duarte was reversed regarding possession but affirmed as to monetary liability. The judgments against Debevar and Arpa were affirmed. No costs were awarded on equitable considerations.