G.R. No. L-5681
COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
October 6, 1910

FACTS:
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (plaintiff) is the registered owner of the “Velez-Malaga” sugar plantation, which includes the 60 hectares in dispute. The plaintiff acquired the property through a series of duly registered sales, originating from Tomas R. de Leon in 1889, and ultimately purchased by the plaintiff in 1908.

On March 13, 1885, Marcelo Corteza filed a claim against Tomas R. de Leon for a debt, and on March 20, 1885, an attachment was levied on 100 hectares of the hacienda. A final judgment was rendered against De Leon in Corteza’s favor on June 28, 1889, but it was never fully satisfied.

On May 25, 1907, Jose Martinez (defendant) purchased Corteza’s interest in the judgment. On July 24, 1908, Martinez petitioned for an execution against De Leon. The sheriff, acting on this execution, took possession of the 100 hectares on August 31, 1908. Despite the plaintiff’s claim of ownership, Martinez, with an indemnity bond, proceeded with a public auction, where 60 of the 100 hectares were sold to Ricardo Nolan (defendant).

The last action by Corteza to satisfy the judgment under the Spanish regime was in 1897. Under the American regime, in 1903, Corteza filed a petition asking the Court of First Instance to order the register of deeds to certify any liens on the attached land, which was granted. No further action was taken until July 12, 1907, when Martinez asked for an execution. De Leon objected on the ground of prescription, but the CFI overruled the objection. The execution of July 24, 1908, ultimately led to the sale of the 60 hectares.

The plaintiff then filed this action on September 19, 1908, to recover the 60 hectares. The lower court dismissed the action, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE:
Could the judgment, rendered and finalized in 1889, be enforced by execution in 1908, considering the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ) which took effect on October 1, 1901?

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the execution issued in July 1908 was null and void.

The Court applied Sections 443 and 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 443 states that a writ of execution may be issued within five years after the entry of judgment. Section 447 provides that after five years, a judgment may only be enforced by a new action instituted in regular form.

The Court noted that the execution was issued in July 1908, more than six years and nine months after the Code of Civil Procedure took effect (October 1, 1901), and nearly nineteen years after the original judgment was rendered in 1889.

The Court ruled that the 1903 petition by Corteza, which merely requested information from the register of deeds, did not constitute an action to enforce the judgment and therefore did not interrupt the five-year period for execution under Section 443. The Court also clarified that Section 38 of the Code, which provided a ten-year period for “rights of action” accruing before the Act, applied to rights of action and not to judgments. Thus, Section 443 applied to judgments entered before the Code’s passage, provided the five-year period had expired after its enactment.

Since the judgment was not enforced within the prescribed five-year period (from the Code’s effectivity or through a new action), the court had lost jurisdiction to issue the execution in 1908. The judgment had ceased to be operative.

Therefore, the 60 hectares of land sold at public auction were ordered to be returned to the plaintiff company.