G.R. No. L-2871 December 26, 1950
ENRIQUE BAUTISTA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAXIMO BAKOD, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

In a prior case (Civil Case No. 7036), Maximo Bakod was declared the owner of a house and lot. The judgment ordered Bakod to deposit P500 with the clerk of court, after which Enrique Bautista was to deliver possession. Bakod made the deposit on May 13, 1939. Later, a supplemental judgment ordered Bakod to pay Bautista P516.02 for improvements, and the Court of Appeals later ruled Bautista was entitled to deduct reasonable compensation for his use of the property from this amount. Bautista never withdrew the P500 deposit. More than five years after the original judgment, Bautista filed an action to revive the judgment (Civil Case No. 9033), claiming he had not received the P500 and interest. The trial court dismissed the complaint for revival, holding no cause of action existed because Bakod had already complied with the judgment by making the deposit.

ISSUE

Whether an action for revival of judgment is proper when the judgment debtor has already complied with the judgment by making the required deposit.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for revival of judgment. The judgment in the prior case had already been complied with by Bakod’s deposit of P500 on May 13, 1939. A judgment that has been fully satisfied cannot be revived for execution. The appeal was deemed frivolous. Treble costs were imposed on the appellant.

AI Generated by Armztrong.