G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982
Eduardo Bien, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Delfin Vir. Sunga, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, The Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur and Raymundo S. Katigbak, respondents.

FACTS

Raymundo S. Katigbak filed an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against the Imperial family and others. Several individuals, including predecessors-in-interest of some petitioners, filed a complaint in intervention claiming ownership of portions of the land. The trial court dismissed the intervention in 1958 and later dismissed Katigbak’s complaint in 1958. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal on August 28, 1968, declaring Katigbak the owner and ordering “the defendants or those occupying the same” to vacate. This judgment became final on January 21, 1969. A writ of execution was issued on June 27, 1969. Various occupants, including the petitioners, moved to quash the writ, arguing prescription of the judgment and lack of jurisdiction over them as non-parties. Their motion was denied.
Subsequently, on March 6, 1974, Katigbak filed a motion for an alias writ of demolition. The respondent judge granted this motion on September 17, 1974. The petitioners then filed the instant petition, contending the order of demolition was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion because the motion for execution was filed after the five-year period for execution by motion had lapsed, and the order was directed against persons not parties to the original case.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of demolition.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the five-year period for execution by motion under the Rules of Court is not absolute. The period is interrupted by various circumstances, such as agreements between parties or injunctions. In this case, the records showed that the judgment debtor had requested and was granted several extensions to vacate the property. These voluntary acts constituted an interruption of the prescriptive period, thereby extending the time within which a writ could be issued upon mere motion. Consequently, the motion for alias writ filed in 1974 was timely.
Regarding the petitioners’ claim that they were not parties and thus not bound, the Court made a distinction. Petitioners Feliciano Navarro, Marcelo Abelende, Salvador Peconcillo, and Benjamin Peconcillo, Jr., were found to be complete strangers with no proven interest in the property, as attested by the sheriff’s certification. The alias writ of demolition did not target them, and they had no cause of action. However, petitioners Vicente Benavente, Carlos Barcela, and Manuel Peconcillo were successors-in-interest to the original intervenors whose complaint was dismissed in 1958. As such, they were bound by the final and executory judgment against their predecessors. Therefore, the respondent judge did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the final judgment against them.