G.R. No. L-41036 September 5, 1975
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE PORFIRIO VILLARIN, DECEASED. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner-claimant-appellant, vs. PURIFICACION VDA. DE VILLARIN, PORFIRIO VILLARIN, JR., ASSISTED BY HER MOTHER PURIFICACION VDA. DE VILLARIN, administratrix-oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) obtained a money judgment against Porfirio Villarin on July 7, 1955. Villarin died intestate on January 18, 1961. PNB learned of his death in mid-1963. As no estate settlement proceedings had been initiated by the heirs, PNB filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration on July 13, 1965. Letters were issued to the widow, Purificacion Vda. de Villarin, on September 24, 1965. PNB subsequently filed its claim based on the 1955 judgment on March 9, 1966.
The administratrix opposed the claim, arguing it had prescribed. She contended that under Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code, an action to enforce a judgment prescribes in ten years from finality. The judgment became final on August 11, 1955, and PNB neither executed it within five years nor filed a revival action within ten years. The trial court agreed, denying the claim in an order dated December 20, 1967, holding the right to enforce the judgment was already barred.

ISSUE

Whether the filing by PNB of a petition for the issuance of letters of administration for the estate of the deceased judgment debtor constitutes an action to enforce the judgment, thereby interrupting the prescriptive period and preventing the claim from being barred.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order. The legal logic is that the filing of a petition for administration, when necessitated by the heirs’ failure to initiate estate proceedings, serves the same purpose as an action for revival of judgment and interrupts prescription. The Court distinguished between the general rule and the specific procedural context. Normally, a judgment may be executed by motion within five years or by a revival action within ten years from finality. However, when the judgment debtor dies and no estate proceedings exist, the creditor’s recourse is to initiate such proceedings to have its claim adjudicated.
Here, PNB’s petition for administration, filed on July 13, 1965 (within the ten-year prescriptive period ending August 11, 1965), was a necessary step to enforce its claim against the estate. This act constituted a judicial demand that effectively interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. The Court held it would be inequitable to bar the claim simply because the creditor, faced with inaction from the heirs, took the initiative to open the estate. The claim filed subsequently in the now-active proceeding was therefore timely. The case was remanded for trial on the merits of PNB’s claim.