GR L 24065; (June, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24065 June 29, 1968
MATIAS RANILLO, JR., petitioner, vs. PERSHING TAN QUETO, ANTONIO YAP HOCKUN, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, OZAMIS CITY BRANCH, and THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
FACTS
A decision was rendered on April 29, 1957, in Civil Case No. 1828 in favor of plaintiffs (private respondents). The defendants appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on July 9, 1958. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 29, 1958. A petition for mandamus to compel the lower court to give due course to the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 16, 1958. A writ of execution was secured on November 19, 1958, and an alias writ was issued on January 22, 1959, both returned unsatisfied. On June 9, 1959, plaintiffs moved to claim satisfaction from the defendants’ bond, but the Supreme Court annulled the lower court’s order granting this on June 29, 1962, holding the sureties were not parties to the action. Later, plaintiffs discovered defendant Matias Ranillo, Jr. (petitioner) had properties in Quezon City and filed a motion for an alias writ of execution. The lower court granted this motion on July 27, 1964. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the legal issue. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction when it issued the order granting an alias writ of execution on July 27, 1964, upon a mere motion, after the lapse of five years from the entry or finality of the judgment, contrary to Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes. The order dated July 27, 1964, is annulled for having been issued without jurisdiction. Under Section 6, Rule 39, a judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, it must be enforced by a separate action. The decision was rendered on April 29, 1957. The appeal was dismissed on July 9, 1958. Whether the five-year period is counted from July 9, 1957 (the thirtieth day after receipt of the decision) or from July 9, 1958 (the date of dismissal of the appeal), more than five years had elapsed by July 27, 1964. Even if counted from October 16, 1958 (the date the Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus petition), more than five years had still elapsed. Therefore, the remedy was a new action to revive the judgment, not an execution by mere motion. The writ is granted.