Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

The five (5) year period is to be counted NOT FROM THE DATE the ud!

"ent beca"e fina# in


the sense that no appea# cou#d be ta$en there fro" %&T 'HEN (T %E)AME E*E)&TOR+ in
the sense that it cou#d a#ready be enforced,
The -rit of e.ecution -as issued Apri# /001 (2ara!raph 1 of the 2etition)
Repub#ic of the 2hi#ippines
SUPREME COURT
Mani#a
EN %AN)
G.R. No. L-21933 February 22, 1971
TAN CHNG !, p#aintiff3appe##ee4
vs,
!UANTO MAPALO, "# $"% &a'a&"(y a% Pro)"#&"a* S$er"++ E,-O++"&"o o+ Co(aba(o, ($e
PHLPPNE NATONAL -AN. a#/ CAMPUA U0 TNA, defendants4 PHLPPNE
NATONAL -AN., defendant3appe##ant,
Camello, Sumayod and Millan Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.
Tomas Besa for defendant-appellant.

FERNAN1O, J.:
The ans-er to the pivota# #e!a# issue in this appea# on a 5uestion of #a- fro" a ud!"ent of the
)ourt of First (nstance of )otabato is supp#ied by Uy Tina v. Avila4
1
a certiorari proceedin! -ith
the petitioner4 the debtor4 see$in! to 5uash a -rit of e.ecution in favor of one of the respondents4
Tan )hin! 6i p#aintiff3appe##ee in this case, (n the opinion of the )ourt penned by 6ustice
Ma$a#inta#4 the une5uivoca# ho#din! is that the five3year period under Ru#e 714 8ection 9 as to
-hen a ud!"ent "ay be e.ecuted on "otion
2
is to be counted not fro" the date :the ud!"ent
beca"e fina# in the sense that no appea# therefro" cou#d be ta$en4 but -hen it beca"e e.ecutory
in the sense that it cou#d a#ready be enforced,: There is thus sufficient #e!a# basis for p#aintiff;s
rescission suit4 no- before this )ourt on appea#4 to set aside the auction sa#e of &y Tina;s
properties4 the debtor bein! the sa"e petitioner in the afore"entioned certiorari proceedin!4 in
favor of defendant 2hi#ippine Nationa# %an$4
3
so#e appe##ant4 insofar as it -ou#d adverse#y affect
four specific ite"s subect to prior attach"ent #ien secured by p#aintiff4 inc#uded in the very sa"e
order of e.ecution issued five years after the fina#ity of the ud!"ent but -ithin such period
counted fro" the ti"e it cou#d e.ecuted and enforced, 8o the #o-er court he#d, (t is thus apparent
that its decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any error, 'e affir"4 but subect to "odification
as -i## be hereinafter indicated,
As set forth in the appea#ed decision4 p#aintiff Tan )hin! 6i fi#ed a co"p#aint for the rescission of
an auction sa#e of certain properties of &y Tina in favor of defendant4 no- appe##ant 2hi#ippine
Nationa# %an$, (t -as sho-n in such co"p#aint that in a civi#
case4
2
for the recovery of the su" of "oney4 he obtained a first #ien upon the properties of
defendant &y Tina by "eans of -rits of attach"ent du#y issued by the sa"e court of first
instance and that subse5uent#y he obtained a ud!"ent in his favor in the su" of 2/74000,00, (n
another civi# case fi#ed a!ainst the sa"e debtor4 defendant 2hi#ippine Nationa# %an$ -as
a-arded the su" of 2<4==/,=9, (t then sued out a -rit of e.ecution and caused to be #evied upon
and so#d at pub#ic auction the very sa"e properties a#ready attached by p#aintiff, The facts -ere
substantia##y ad"itted by defendant but as affir"ative defense it -as a##e!ed that as a third party
it -as not bound by a -rit of attach"ent issued, There -as a pre3tria# and thereafter a
co"pro"ise a!ree"ent on both of -hich occasions there -as an ad"ission on the part of
defendant 2hi#ippine Nationa# %an$ that t-o parce#s of #and in the "unicipa#ity of Du#a-an4
province of )otabato4 a co""ercia# #ot in the sa"e "unicipa#ity as -e## as a t-o3storey
co""ercia# and residentia# bui#din!4 a#so in the sa"e "unicipa#ity4 had been the subect of
attach"ent in favor of p#aintiff in his suit a!ainst the debtor4 &y Tina,
3
The decision in the suit
bet-een p#aintiff and &y Tina rendered on February >4 ?15> a-arded4 as noted above4 the su" of
2/74000,00 to p#aintiff4 but upon a!ree"ent of the parties defendant &y Tina -as !iven a period
of si. years -ithin -hich to pay4 durin! -hich ti"e he cou#d ho#d and enoy the fruits of such
properties, The ud!"ent debt4 ho-ever4 re"ained unsatisfied and it -as not unti# Au!ust ?>4
?19/ that there -as an order for e.ecution based on such ud!"ent, (n the "ean-hi#e4 as far
bac$ as February /74 ?1514 the very sa"e property4 subect of the attach"ent4 had been ac5uired
by defendant 2hi#ippine Nationa# %an$ in an e.ecution sa#e resu#tin! fro" a ud!"ent in its
favor in a suit fi#ed by it a!ainst the sa"e debtor for the a"ount of 2<4==/,=9,
On those facts4 the #o-er court sustained p#aintiff Tan )hin! 6i4 its decision of February 54 ?1974
specifica##y dec#arin! :the first and prior attach"ent #ien in favor of the p#aintiff4 Tan )hin! 6i4
on the properties of the defendant )a"pua &y Tina in )ivi# )ase No, 579 va#id and subsistin!4
and superior to the #evy on e.ecution and sa#e at pub#ic auction in favor of the 2hi#ippine
Nationa# %an$ in )ivi# )ase No, >9=, )onse5uent#y4 the )ourt dec#ares the #evy on e.ecution4
the auction sa#e4 and the )ertificate of 6udicia# 8a#e4 E.hibit ;H;4 rescinded and nu## and void and
-ithout any #e!a# effect -ith respect on#y to the properties of )a"pua &y Tina deno"inated in
the said E.hibit ;H; as @firstA4 @secondA4 @thirdA and @fourth parce#sA4 ,,, @-hichA sha## be he#d and
re"ain as they -ere before the #a- on e.ecution and udicia# sa#e on February /74 ?1514 to a-ait
the e.ecution and satisfaction of the ud!"ent in )ivi# )ase No, 5794 pursuant to 8ecs, ? and 5 of
Ru#e 514 Ru#es of )ourt,:
4
The principa# #e!a# 5uestion on -hich appe##ant 2hi#ippine Nationa# %an$ -ou#d see$ a reversa#
of the aforesaid decision is the nu##ity of an order of e.ecution upon "ere "otion fi#ed after five
years fro" the date it beca"e fina#, (ts appea# is doo"ed to fai#ure, 8uch a contention -as
cate!orica##y reected in Uy Tina v. Avila4
7
referred to at the openin! of this opinion4 -ith the
very sa"e debtor4 &y Tina4 as petitioner3appe##ee Tan )hin! 6i as one of the respondents,
The bac$!round facts of the above &y Tina certiorari proceedin! are set forth in the opinion of
6ustice Ma$a#inta# thusB :(n )ivi# case 579 of the )ourt of First (nstance of )otabato4 Tan )hin!
6i4 p#aintiff4 vs, )a"pua &y Tina4 defendant4 the parties e.ecuted a co"pro"ise a!ree"ent4
-hich -as sub"itted to and approved by the )ourt in its decision dated February >4 ?15>, &nder
that a!ree"ent the defendant ob#i!ated hi"se#f to pay p#aintiff the su" of 2/74000,00 ;-ithout
interest4 -ithin a period of si. (9) years fro" date hereof,; (t -as a#so stipu#ated that certain
properties -hich had been attached as security -ou#d not be re#eased unti# fu## pay"ent and that
the defendant ;durin! the period of si. (9) years4 sha## ho#d and fu##y enoy the fruits of said
properties,; :
5
After -hich ca"e the fo##o-in! recita#B :On 8epte"ber /04 ?1904 after the si.3
year period had e.pired4 p#aintiff Tan )hin! 6i fi#ed a "otion for e.ecution, The "otion -as
!ranted and the -rit -as issued on Au!ust ?>4 ?19/, Defendant )a"pua &y Tina "oved to
reconsider on 8epte"ber ?74 ?19/4 announcin! in his "otion that he -as !oin! to fi#e an
ordinary action to enoin the enforce"ent of the decision, This he did on the fo##o-in!
8epte"ber ?< ()ivi# )ase No, ?<>7), On October /04 ?19/ the court denied the "otion for
reconsideration in )ivi# )ase No, 5794 and on 6anuary 74 ?197 another -rit of e.ecution -as
issued, 8evera# other "otions -ere subse5uent#y fi#ed by the defendant C to 5uash the -rit of
e.ecution or stay its enforce"ent C but they -ere a## denied by the )ourt in its order dated
February ??4 ?197,:
9
(t -as at that sta!e that &y Tina fi#ed the petition for certiorari to have the -rit of e.ecution
issued on Au!ust ?>4 ?19/ and a## subse5uent proceedin!s thereafter annu##ed and set aside, He
invo$ed :Ru#e 714 8ection 94 -hich provides that a ud!"ent "ay be e.ecuted on "otion -ithin
five (5) years fro" the date of its entry4 and that after the #apse of such ti"e and before it is
barred by the statute of #i"itations4 a ud!"ent "ay be enforced by action, The contention is that
since the decision approvin! the co"pro"ise a!ree"ent -as rendered on February >4 ?15>4 it
cou#d no #on!er be e.ecuted by "ere "otion -hen respondent4 p#aintiff be#o-4 "oved for that
purpose on 8epte"ber /04 ?1904 "ore than five years havin! then e#apsed, 2etitioner -ou#d have
respondent fi#e an ordinary action in order to rea#iDe the a"ount to -hich he is un5uestionab#y
entit#ed,:
16
(n the ans-er of respondent 6ud!e Avi#a4 it -as stated :that entry of ud!"ent in
)ivi# )ase No, 579 -as "ade by the )#er$ of )ourt on#y on February 54 ?1904 because it -as
on#y then that the ud!"ent had beco"e fina# and e.ecutory4 and conse5uent#y the -rit of
e.ecution issued on Au!ust ?>4 ?19/ -as -e## -ithin the period of five years provided for in
Ru#e 714 8ection 9, 2etitioner4 on the other hand4 ar!ues that said period shou#d be counted fro"
the date the ud!"ent beca"e fina#4 -hich -as i""ediate#y upon its rendition because it -as a
ud!"ent on co"pro"ise,:
11
Then ca"e the ho#din! in the opinion of 6ustice Ma$a#inta#4 spea$in! for the )ourtB :The
uncontradicted state"ent of respondent 6ud!e that ud!"ent -as entered on#y in ?190 shou#d be
sufficient to dispose of this petition on the basis of the #itera# ter"s of Ru#e 714 8ection 94 as
invo$ed by petitioner, %ut even irrespective of the date of entry of ud!"ent4 the decisive issue
here is not -hen the ud!"ent beca"e fina# in the sense that no appea# therefro" cou#d be ta$en4
but when it became executory in the sense that it could already be enforced, For it -ou#d be
id#e to spea$ of e.ecution or to try to obtain a -rit for that purpose if the ud!"ent -as not yet
enforceab#e, Ru#e 714 8ection 94 in providin! that a ud!"ent "ay be e.ecuted on "otion -ithin
five (5) years fro" the date of its entry4 c#ear#y and #o!ica##y conte"p#ates the usua# situation
-herein such ud!"ent is susceptib#e of e.ecution or enforce"ent the "o"ent it ac5uires the
character of fina#ity,:
12
There can be no disputin! the va#idity of the conc#usion reached by us in the &y Tina decisionB
:)ou#d defendant4 petitioner here4 be co"pe##ed to co"p#y -ith his ob#i!ation under the
ud!"ent and4 upon fai#ure to do so4 cou#d his properties be #evied upon4 at any ti"e -ithin si.
(9) years fro" the rendition of the ud!"ent on February >4 ?15>E The ans-er is obvious, He
-as !iven that period -ithin -hich to pay, His ob#i!ation -as one -ith a ter" and the ter" -as
indubitab#y for his benefit4 as sho-n by the fact that the ob#i!ation carried no interest #iabi#ity
and that in the "eanti"e he continued in possession and enoy"ent of the properties -hich -ere
under attach"ent for purposes of security, &nder Artic#e ??17 of the )ivi# )ode an ob#i!ation
-ith a ter" is de"andab#e on#y -hen the ter" e.pires, Had respondent de"anded pay"ent fro"
petitioner before the e.piration of the ter" !iven to hi"4 he cou#d very -e## have refused to pay
on the !round that his ob#i!ation had not yet beco"e due, A -rit of e.ecution -ou#d have been
as futi#e, 8ince such -rit cou#d on#y have been effective#y issued as futi#e, 8ince such -rit cou#d
on#y have been effective#y issued after the #apse of si. (9) years fro" February >4 ?15>4
respondent court co""itted neither error nor abuse of discretion -hen he did issue it upon
"otion on Au!ust ?>4 ?19/ pursuant to Ru#e 714 8ection 9,:
13
The 5uestion has thus been definite#y set at rest, The co"pe##in! force of the above decision
#eaves appe##ant -ithout any support for his stand, The decision on appea# is not vitiated
therefore by the a##e!ations in the three re#ated assi!ned errors that the order of e.ecution in ?19/
is -ithout #e!a# basis as the ud!"ent in favor of p#aintiff had ceased to be enforceab#e by a "ere
"otion under 8ection 9 of Ru#e 71, Nor -ou#d it ca## for a reversa# of the appea#ed decision even
if the first assi!ned error to the #o-er court shou#d have a##o-ed an a"end"ent of the ans-er of
appe##ant to inc#ude additiona# affir"ative defenses4 since even if it -ere thus4 the authoritative
force e.erted by Uy Tina v. Avila prec#udes a reversa# of the appea#ed decision,
(n the appea#ed decision4 ho-ever4 the #o-er court dec#ared :the #evy on e.ecution4 the auction
sa#e4 and the )ertificate of 6udicia# 8a#e4 E.hibit ;H;4 rescinded and nu## and void and -ithout any
#e!a# effect -ith respect on#y to the properties of )a"pua &y Tina deno"inated in the said
E.hibit ;H; as @firstA4 @secondA4 @thirdA and
@fourth parce#s4A ,,, @-hichA sha## be he#d and re"ain as they -ere before the #evy on e.ecution
and udicia# sa#e on February /74 ?1514 to a-ait the e.ecution and satisfaction of the ud!"ent in
)ivi# )ase No, 5794 pursuant to 8ecs, ? and 5 of Ru#e 514 Ru#es of
)ourt,:
12
(t shou#d not have !one that far, (t suffices that such ;#evy on e.ecution4 the auction
sa#e4 and the certificate of 6udicia# 8a#e4 E.hibit ;H;4: be dee"ed as subect to the ri!hts of the
p#aintiff Tan )hin! 6i by virtue of the prior and superior attach"ent #ien4 -hich he "ay no-
enforce accordin! to #a-,
'HEREFORE4 the #o-er court decision of February 54 ?197 is affir"ed4 -ith the "odification
above set forth, 'ith costs a!ainst appe##ant 2hi#ippine Nationa# %an$,