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, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment, ordering Bautista to pay Bakod P495.02 for improvements, but allowing Bakod to deduct from this amount the reasonable compensation for Bautista’s use of the property. Bakod never withdrew the P500 deposit. More than five years after the original judgment, Bakod filed an action to revive the judgment (Civil Case No. 9033), claiming he had not received payment of the P500 and interest. The trial court dismissed the complaint for revival, holding no cause of action existed because the judgment had already been complied with via the deposit. Bakod appealed.

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 fully complied with by Bakod’s deposit of P500 on May 13, 1939. Since that part of the judgment was satisfied, no writ of execution could be issued for it, and an action for revival was unnecessary and frivolous. The appeal was dismissed with treble costs against appellant Bakod.

AI Generated by Armztrong.