G.R. No. L-22341; April 29, 1969
JOSE RAMOS, petitioner, vs. HON. HONORATO GARCIANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, ANASTACIO G. AZCARRAGA, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, ANTONIO A. RUIZ, Deputy Provincial Sheriff, NATIVIDAD VDA. DE TRANI and MANUEL TRANI, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Ramos was the defendant in Civil Case No. 367 before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which ordered him to pay a sum of money in a decision dated December 15, 1954. His appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed, and judgment was entered on June 21, 1956. The trial court issued an order for execution on July 5, 1958, and a writ of execution was issued on August 20, 1958. This initial writ was returned unserved on October 7, 1958, because the trial judge suggested its suspension pending the termination of another case, Civil Case No. 102, involving Ramos. This suggestion was agreed upon by the sheriff and the winning party’s attorney and representative. Several alias writs of execution were subsequently issued but were not served or satisfied due to the plaintiff’s failure to deposit necessary expenses. A 4th alias writ of execution was issued on June 29, 1961. By virtue of this writ, the sheriff levied upon and sold seventeen parcels of land belonging to Ramos at public auction on August 8, 1962. More than a year later, on October 23, 1963, Ramos petitioned to set aside the execution sale, arguing that the 4th alias writ was null and void for having been issued five years and eight days after the entry of judgment on June 21, 1956. The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Honorato Garciano, denied the petition and a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the 4th alias writ of execution dated June 29, 1961, issued more than five years after the entry of judgment on June 21, 1956, is valid, considering the alleged suspension of the execution period due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 102.

RULING

The 4th alias writ of execution is null and void. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the execution sale. The general rule under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is that a judgment may be enforced by execution only within five years from its entry, and after that period, it can only be enforced by an ordinary action. The 4th alias writ was issued eight days after the lapse of this five-year period. The respondents’ theory that the suspension of the initial writ on October 7, 1958, interrupted the running of the period because Ramos’s properties were allegedly in custodia legis during Civil Case No. 102 was rejected. The Court held that for property to be in custodia legis, it must be legally seized or attached pursuant to a valid court order, which was not shown in the records of Civil Case No. 102. The suspension of the initial writ did not interrupt the five-year period because, first, it was without the knowledge and consent of the judgment debtor Ramos, and second, the pendency of Civil Case No. 102 did not legally preclude the levy of execution upon other properties of Ramos. The delay in execution was attributable to the plaintiff’s own acts, not to the defendant. The limitation on the period for execution is jurisdictional; a writ issued after the period is void, and the failure to object does not validate it.