Rule 39 - Execution

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 39 – Execution,
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Satisfaction

And Effect of Judgments
Rule 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND
EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
Rule 39 is on the subject of Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments. This is the longest rule
in the study of Civil Procedure. Take note that there are 48 Sections. Let us first review the
fundamentals.
Q: Define execution.
A: EXECUTION is the remedy provided by law for the enforcement of a judgment. (21 Am. Jur. 18)
It is the fruit and the end of the suit and is very aptly called the life of the law (PAL vs. Court of
Appeals, 181 SCRA 557).
It would be useless if there is judgment but you cannot enforce the same. When you receive the
decision of court in your favor, what will you do with that? If there is no way to enforce that decision,
i-laminate mo na lang yan. Useless eh!
Q: Who will enforce the judgment?

A: The very same court which rendered the judgment.
Q: How is execution generally done?

A: It is generally done by filing a motion for execution by the prevailing party and the court will
then issue an order of execution, which will be followed with a writ of execution, and the sheriff will
enforce the judgment.
So, we file a motion in court after the judgment has become final and executory.
Q: How can the court issue the order when it has already lost jurisdiction over the case? because
from what we have learned here is that, one of the effects of the finality of judgment is that the court
loses jurisdiction over the case. And when the court loses jurisdiction, it can no longer act on the case.
So, how can it still issue orders in that case when actually, once the judgment becomes final and
executory, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case and it can no longer act in that case?
A: What is meant by that statement is that, the court can no longer change the judgment. That is
why new trial and reconsideration is not anymore available in this stage. The judgment is beyond the
power of the court to change or alter.
BUT definitely the court can act on that case for the purpose of enforcing its judgment because it is
absurd to claim that a trial court has the power to try and hear a case but once the judgment has
already become final, it has no more power to enforce it. If you will really describe jurisdiction in its
complete aspect, we can say jurisdiction is “the power of the court to act on the case, to try, to decide and to
enforce its judgment.” That would be more complete. Because enforcement is part of the court's
jurisdiction.
Q: Against whom shall the execution issue?

A: Generally, execution can issue only against a (losing) party to the case and not against one who
is a complete stranger because majority of judgments are in personam. They are only enforceable against
the parties themselves or their successors-in-interest – people who derive their rights from him. And a
judgement can never be enforced against a complete stranger who never had his day in court.
(Cruzcosa vs. Concepcion, 101 Phil. 146; Castañeda vs. De Leon, 55 O.G. 625, Jan. 26, 1959; Bacolod vs.
Enriquez, 55 O.G. 10545, Dec. 21, 1959)
Q: What portion in the decision is normally the subject of execution ?

A: It is the dispositive portion – the “WHEREFORE…” – that is going to be enforced. (Robles vs.
Timario, 58 O.G. 1507, Feb. 19, 1962)
CLASSES OF EXECUTION
Lakas Atenista 1
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
Q: What are the classes of execution under the law?

A: The following:
I. As to their nature:
1.) COMPULSORY execution – known as Execution as a Matter of Right (Section 1)
2.) DISCRETIONARY execution – known as Execution Pending Appeal (Section 2)
II. As to how it is enforced (Section 6):

1.) EXECUTION BY MOTION
2.) EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
COMPULSORY EXECUTION
(Execution as a matter of right)
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

FIRST INSTANCE: NO APPEAL, JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL
Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. – Execution shall issue

as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the
action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no
appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution
may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment
obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments
or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with
notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of
justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of
examination.
Q: What are the conditions for compulsory execution?

A: The following are the conditions:
1.) FIRST CONDITION: If a judgment has disposed already of the action or proceeding then it
can be executed ;
2.) SECOND CONDITION: The period to appeal has expired and no appeal has been
filed/taken from the judgment.
Under the first condition, if a judgment has disposed already of the action or proceeding then it can
be executed because if the judgment or order has not yet disposed of the action or proceeding, that is
called an interlocutory judgment or order.
One of the effects of finality of a judgment under Rule 36 is that the prevailing party is entitled to
have the judgment executed as a matter of right. And it is the ministerial duty of the court to execute
its own judgment. So once the judgment has become final, all that the winner or prevailing party has to
do is to file an action in court for execution, the court has to issue.
When the law says it is a matter of right upon a judgment or order that disposes the action or
proceeding, it means that after the judgment was rendered, there is nothing more for the court to do
because its job is over. Therefore, if there is something more that the court can do, as a rule, you cannot
execute. That is why conditional judgments, incomplete judgments cannot be executed.
Under the second condition, we must wait for the period to appeal to expire before we can move
for execution. So, if the period to appeal has not yet expired, then we cannot execute the judgment. As
corollary to that rule we have this question:
Q: May the court refuse to execute a judgment on the ground that the judgement was wrong or
erroneous?
Lakas Atenista 2
A: NO, because it is a matter of and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution upon a final
and executory judgment is a ministerial duty of the court to execute which is compellable by
mandamus. (Ebero vs. Cañizares, 79 Phil. 152) The principle is: No matter how erroneous a judgment
may be, so long as the lower court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in litigation,
(in short the judgment is valid), the said judgment is enforceable by execution once it becomes final and
executory. The error also becomes final. If it is erroneous, the remedy is to appeal, otherwise the error
becomes final as well.
In execution, if you are not careful, there are lawyers who are very good in thwarting an execution
where a series of maneuvers are utilized - we can still be delayed by questioning this and that and
sometimes courts are unwitting accomplices. That is why in the 1994 of
PELAYO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

230 SCRA 606
HELD: “We have time and again ruled that courts should never allow themselves to be
a party to maneuvers intended to delay the execution of final decisions. They must nip in
the bud any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice, fair play
and prompt implementation of final and executory judgment. Litigation must end and
terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of
justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere
subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any
scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to
controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.”
GENERAL RULE: Judgment is enforceable by execution once it becomes final and executory.
EXCEPTIONS: (WOLFSON vs. DEL ROSARIO, 46 Phil. 41)
1. When there has been a change in the situation of the parties, which makes the execution
inequitable;
2. When it appears that the controversy has never been submitted to the judgment of the court;
3. When the judgment was novated by subsequent agreement of the parties;
4. When it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued;
5. When the writ of execution is defective in substance;
6. When the writ of execution is issued against the wrong party; and
7. When the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied.
[1] WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES
WHICH MAKE THE EXECUTION INEQUITABLE. (Supervening Fact Doctrine)
One of the most important exceptions is the first one: When there has been a change in the situation of
the parties which make the execution inequitable. Meaning, from the time na nagkaroon ng final judgment
up to the present, there has been a change in the situation of the parties so that if we will execute, the
judgment becomes inequitable already. So, this is just another way of saying that there has been a
SUPERVENING EVENT that happened which makes execution inequitable.
EXAMPLE: There was a case where A filed a case to eject B from his property and B lost the case
and there was a judgment ordering him to vacate the property of A. But while the case was going on, A
mortgaged his property to the bank. In the meantime, he failed to pay his loan and the bank foreclosed
the mortgage. So the property was sold at public auction. And at the auction sale, B, the one occupying
it, bought the property. The owner now is B. But there is a final judgment ejecting him. Now, shall we
insist on the judgment ejecting B? No because B is now the owner. The fact that B became the owner is
a supervening event.
Lakas Atenista 3
[3] WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS NOVATED BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT.
QUESTION: Can the parties enter into a compromise agreement when there is already a decision?
ANSWER: YES. Compromise agreement is welcome anytime – before the case is filed, while the
case is going on, while the case is on appeal.
Q: Now suppose there is a decision in my favor against you and then you approach me and say,
“Pwede ba pag-usapan na lang natin ito?” “Sige okay.” Then we arrive at another agreement which we
signed, where the agreement is different from the decision in my favor. Can it be done?
A: Yes, I can waive my rights under the judgment. There is now a new agreement between us.
Q: Can I execute on the original judgment?

A: No more, because the new agreement novated the judgment. Take note that in case of novation,
the new obligation must be totally incompatible with the first obligation.
A related question:
Q: Can one court by injunction or restraining order stop the execution of a judgment of another
court?
A: GENERAL RULE: NO, because that will amount to interference.
EXCEPTIONS:(when the enforcement of a final judgment may be stopped by way of injunction)
1.) Rule 38, Section 5:
Rule 38, Section 5: Preliminary injunction pending proceedings. – The court

in which the petition is filed, may grant such preliminary injunction as may be
necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing by
the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned that if the
petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon the
merits, he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be awarded
to him by reason of the issuance of such injunction or the other proceedings
following the petition; but such injunction shall not operate to discharge or
extinguish any lien which the adverse party may have acquired upon the property
of the petitioner.
In effect, there is a final and executory judgment but the court will issue an injunction to
stop this enforcement because of the pendency of a petition for relief from judgment.
2.) When there is an action for annulment of judgment of the RTC filed in the CA.
The CA may issue a writ of preliminary injunction – annulment of judgment, certiorari, or

prohibition cases where the CA will issue a preliminary injunction to stop the RTC from
enforcing its judgment pending the resolution of whether its judgment was rendered in excess
or without jurisdiction- annulment of judgement, certiorari, or prohibition cases where the CA
will issue a preliminary injunction to stop the RTC from enforcing its judgement pending the
resolution of whether its judgement was rendered in excess or without jurisdiction.
So, those are the exceptions.

SECOND INSTANCE: CA AFFIRMS THE RTC JUDGMENT
Q: Is there any other instances where a judgement maybe executed as a matter of right?
A: YES, when the losing party appealed the RTC decision to the CA and the CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC. Kung may appeal, the judgment is not final, you cannot execute. The case is now
in the CA, the CA decided in your favor, the RTC judgment was affirmed and the CA decision has also
become final and executory. So you can now execute.
Q: How do you execute in that situation?

A: That is now covered by the second and third paragraphs of Section 1:
Lakas Atenista 4
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution
may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment
obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments
or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with
notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of
justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
Now the usual procedure no, when you win in the RTC and the losing party appeals, the records of
the case will be brought to the CA. Later, there will be a CA decision: The judgment of the RTC of Davao
City is affirmed in toto. Now you have to wait for the CA judgment to become final because that may be
appealed further to the SC. If the judgment becomes final, the clerk of court will make an entry of final
judgment of the CA decision. Normally after that, the records from the CA will be returned to Davao. It
will be sent back to the court of origin. Once the record is back, the RTC is supposed to tell you, the
records are here. That is the time you file a motion for execution. You will file it in the RTC.
But sometimes, it takes months for the CA to return the records. That is the trouble with the CA. It
takes them several months, when the case is appealed, before they tell you that the record is here.
In the PRESENT rules, this is taken from the SC Circular 24-94 which took effect in 1994, hindi na
kailangan hintayin ang records na bumalik dito. Just get a certified copy of the CA decision, get a copy
of the entry of final judgment of the CA. You just attach a copy of the CA judgment and a certificate
from the CA clerk of court that it is already final and executory - meaning, that there is already entry of
final judgment. This is much faster than waiting for the records to be returned.
The first paragraph in Section 1 normally deals with judgment usually becoming final and
executory in the RTC. The rest of the paragraph deals with appeal which affirmed the decision of the
RTC. So that is the procedure for execution – both cases, execution is a matter of right because
judgment is final and executory.
The alternative which is the last paragraph, in the interest of justice, you can file also your motion
for execution in the CA and the CA will direct the RTC to issue the writ of execution.

THIRD INSTANCE: CASES UNDER SECTION 4
Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?

A: This is the third instance found in Section 4:
Sec. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. - Judgments in action for

injunction, receivership, accounting and support, and such other judgments as
are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be
enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken
therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the
appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying,
restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of
support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as
may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the
adverse party. (4a)
GENERAL RULE: If there is an appeal, the judgment will be stayed.

EXCEPTIONS (Under Section 4): Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting,
support, judgment declared to be immediately executory.
So, actions for injunction, receivership, accounting, support. So for example: there’s an injunction
from the court: “The defendant is enjoined from trespassing on plaintiff’s land.” Then you appealed. So, the
decision is not final. Now, if the judgment is not yet final, what will you do in the meantime. So, you’ll
say; “I’ll just continue to trespass because anyway the judgment is not yet final.” Ah hindi yan pwede. Even
if the judgment is not yet final, even if it is on appeal, you have to honor the injunction. So, in effect, it
is a matter of right.
Lakas Atenista 5
Another Example: An order directing you to render an accounting. Take the case of recovery of
possession of land with accounting of the income that you received. After trial, “Okey, Defendant, you
turn over the possession of the property to the plaintiff and you render an accounting.” Appeal ka. Pag appeal
mo, there must be an accounting in the meantime.
So, if there is a judgment for an action for support, you must comply with the judgment even before
it becomes final. So, the amendment now includes support and this phrase, “such other judgments as are
now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory.” Any judgment which is declared by law to be
immediately executory has to be enforced even before it becomes final and executory even if there is an
appeal.
Q: Give an example of a law which declares a judgement to be immediately executory?

A: The best example would be the Summary Procedure – where a decision of the MTC in a civil
case is appealed to the RTC, the decision of the RTC is immediately executory even if we go to the CA.
It has to be executed unless the appellate court will stop the execution in the meantime.

FOURTH INSTANCE: FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?

A: YES, under Rule 70 – a judgment of the MTC in a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case is
immediately executory (i.e. subject to immediate execution) even if it is not yet final and executory.
TO SUMMARIZE:
Q: When is execution a matter of right?
A: In the following:
1.) Section 1, paragraph 1 – no appeal; judgment becomes final;
2.) Section 1, paragraph 2 – there is an appeal; once the CA judgment becomes final;
3.) Section 4 – Judgment in an action for injunction, receivership, accounting, support,
judgment declared to be immediately executory; and
4.) Rule 70 – Judgments in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases.
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
(Execution pending appeal)
Section 2. Discretionary execution. –
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. – On motion of
the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court
while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in the possession of either the
original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the
filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order the execution of
a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution
pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a
special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several,
separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions
as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
We’ll now go to the second type of execution - discretionary or execution pending appeal.
Discretionary, meaning, the court may or may not order the execution.
Here, the prevailing party files a motion for execution within the 15 days period. So in other words,
the judgment is not yet final and executory, normally, within the period to appeal.
Q: Normally, can you file a motion for execution within the period to appeal?
A: As a rule, you cannot because it is not yet final. But by EXCEPTION, Section 2 allows you,
provided, according to the last paragraph, discretionary execution may only issue upon ‘good reason’
to be stated in the special order after due hearing.
Lakas Atenista 6
Q: Therefore, what are the requisites for discretionary execution?

A: The following are the requisites for discretionary execution:
1.) There must be a motion filed by the prevailing party;
2.) There must be a notice of the motion given to the adverse party; and
3.) There must be good reasons to execute to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
Why discretionary? Because the court may or may not grant the execution depending on whether
there is a good reason or no good reason. Unlike in Section 1, when the judgment has become final and
executory, you do not have to cite any good reason. The only reason for the execution is that the
judgment becomes final and executory. But in the case of execution pending appeal, you must justify it
– the party must convince the court to grant the execution. And remember according to the SC,
execution under Section 2 is not the general rule, that is the exception.
“The requirement of good reason is important and must not be overlooked, because if the judgment
is executed and, on appeal, the same is reversed, although there are provisions for restitution,
oftentimes damages may arise which cannot be fully compensated. Accordingly, execution should be
granted only when these considerations are clearly outweighed by superior circumstances demanding
urgency, and the above provision requires a statement of those circumstances as a security for their
existence.” (City of Bacolod vs. Enriquez, 101 Phil. 644)
It is even a misnomer – execution pending appeal. For all you know, the losing party may or may
not appeal. It is actually called execution pending appeal because you are filing the motion within the
period to appeal.
Q: What will happen if there are no good reasons?

A: The writ of execution is void because it does not state why you are executing a judgment.
(AFWU vs. Estipona, L-17934, Dec. 28, 1961) And remember that execution pending appeal is the
exception rather than the rule. And there is a possibility that the judgment in your favor will be
reversed on appeal.
Q: Suppose we will execute the judgment pending appeal and the appeal will proceed then it will
be reversed, what will happen then?
A: If that happens, then there is Section 5 – eh di, magsaulian tayo if it is reversed totally, partially,
or annulled on appeal or otherwise. There will be MUTUAL RESTITUTION. That is the remedy under
Section 5. But the trouble is ang hirap man ng saulian, eh. There could not be a 100% perfect restitution.
That is the same asking the question, how can you unscramble an unscrambled egg? This is one reason why
execution pending appeal is not favored.
Section 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. - Where the executed

judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise,
the trial court, may, on motion, issue such orders and justice may warrant under
the circumstances (5a)
Q: Give examples of GOOD REASONS which would justify execution pending appeal.
A: Following are example of good reasons:
1.) When there is danger of the judgment becoming INEFFECTUAL. (Scottish Union vs. Macadaeg,
91 Phil. 891);
In this case of MACADAEG, the plaintiff sued a foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines. So it has assets no? The plaintiff sued the foreign company and he won, there was
award, but hindi pa final. In the meantime, plaintiff learned the foreign company is going to
stop completely its business in the Philippines and they are going to send back all their assets
abroad. Sabi ng na plaintiff: “Aba delikado ako. Suppose after the appeal, I still win and I will start
running after the defendant na wala naman dito. It has no more office, no operations, no assets; but in the
Lakas Atenista 7
meantime meron pa”? So the plaintiff filed a motion for execution pending appeal. If we will wait
for the judgment to become final, by that time the judgment will become ineffectual.
2.) OLD AGE; There was a case an old woman files a case against somebody to recover her land
from the defendant which the latter has deprived her of the property for years. The defendant
enjoyed the property and the fruits. After years of litigation she won, she was about 80. And
then mag-aappeal pa yong kalaban. The old woman filed a motion in court asking for
immediate execution even if the judgment is not yet final on the argument that “I have been
deprived for years of the possession and of the property; and there is a probable appeal which may take
another couple of years. By the time I win the case on appeal, I may already be dead. I have not enjoyed
the property and the fruits.” The SC said, all right that is a good reason.
3.) Where the appeal is for the purpose of DELAY;
Q: How about the argument that the intended appeal is dilatory? It is only intended to
prolong the supposed execution and therefore the losing party has a chance to win the appeal.
Is that a good ground for execution pending appeal ?
A: In the old case of PRESBITERO vs. RODAS (73 Phil. 300) and JAVELLANA vs.
QUERUBIN (July 30, 1966) the SC said that, that is a good reason – when the appeal is
interposed for delay.
4.) When the successful party files a BOND;
Q: Here is a controversial question: How about an instance when the winning party offers to
put up a bond. He says; “Alright, I am asking for an order pending appeal. I will put up a bond to
answer for any damages that the defendant may suffer in the event that he wins the appeal.”
A: In the old case of HACIENDA NAVARRA vs. LABRADOR (65 Phil 635), the SC simply
implied that there is a good ground. HOWEVER, the SC denied that implication in later cases.
Among which were the cases of ROXAS vs. CA (157 SCRA 370) and PNB vs. PUNO, (170 SCRA
229) and PHOTOQUICK INC. vs. LAPENA, JR. (195 SCRA 66).
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. PUNO

170 SCRA 229
HELD: “The mere filing of a bond would not entitle the prevailing party to an
execution pending appeal. Whatever doubts may have been generated by early
decisions involving this matter, starting with Hacienda Navarra, Inc. vs. Labrador, et al.,
have been clarified in Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.”
“To consider the mere posting of a bond a ‘good reason’ would precisely make
immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal ROUTINARY, the rule rather than
the exception. Judgments would be executed immediately, as a matter of course, once
rendered, if all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bond to answer for
the damages that might result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat, neither
contemplated nor intended by law.”
So, we might say that the posting of a bond would be an ADDITIONAL GOOD REASON
but it is NOT BY ITSELF a good reason. So, the case of HACIENDA NAVARRA VS. LABRADOR
has been misinterpreted.
The second paragraph of Section 2 [a]:
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution
pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Q: Where can you file your motion for execution pending appeal?
A: It DEPENDS:
Lakas Atenista 8
1.) TRIAL COURT - while it has jurisdiction over the case and the court is still in possession of
the records of the case. Meaning: (1.) the judgment has not yet become final - it is still
within the 15 day period, and (2.) the court still is in possession of the records of the
case.
2.) APPELLATE COURT – after the trial court has already lost jurisdiction, the motion for
execution pending appeal may already be filed in the appellate court.
So, if the RTC has no more jurisdiction, then doon ka na mag-file ng motion sa CA.
Q: When will the court lose jurisdiction over the case ?

A: With regard to execution pending appeal, you can correlate this with RULE 41, SECTION 9 , to
wit:
Rule 41, Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - A party’s appeal

by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice
of appeal in due time.
A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to his with
respect to the subject matter thereof upon approval of the record of appeal
filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the
time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due
time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record of the
record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation
of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the
appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal. (9a)
The phrase “order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39” was not there in the
Old Rules. Now, that has been added and it jives with Section 2 paragraph (a). Now, for as long as the
motion is filed, before the court loses jurisdiction and provided that the records are still with the trial
court , even if the appeal is subsequently perfected, it can still act on the motion for execution pending
appeal.
Now, let us go back to Section 2, Rule 39 on execution of several, separate or partial judgments –
meaning, there are several judgments arising from the same case:
Rule 39, Section 2 [b]:
b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several,

separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions
as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. (2a)
Let us correlate this provision with Rule 36, Sections 4 and 5 AND Rule 37, section 8:
RULE 36, Sec. 4. Several judgments. - In an action against several

defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is proper, render judgment
against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others.
(4)
RULE 36, Sec. 5. Separate judgments. - When more than one claim for relief is
presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of the
issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the
transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim, may render
a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall terminate the
action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as
to the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by
order may stay its enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or
judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to secure the
benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered. (5a)
RULE 37, Sec. 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. - When less than all
of the issues are ordered retried, the court may either enter a judgment or
Lakas Atenista 9
final order as to the rest, or stay the enforcement of such judgment or final
order until after the new trial. (7a)
Q: Can there be two or more judgments arising out of one case?

A: YES. (Rule 36, Sections 4 and 5)
Q: Can the first judgment be immediately executed while waiting for rendition of the second
judgment?
A: Generally, the court will decide. If the court agrees, there has to be a good reason.
There is one interesting case on execution pending appeal – the case of
RCPI vs. LANTIN

134 SCRA 395
FACTS: The case of Lantin was an action for damages. The court awarded the plaintiff
said damages. So, the plaintiff moved for discretionary execution.
ISSUE: Whether or not execution pending appeal is proper in a judgment for damages.
HELD: The execution pending appeal may be proper for enforcing the collection of
ACTUAL DAMAGES, but it is not proper to enforce the payment of moral or exemplary
damages. So, this is where the SC distinguished.
Why is it that execution pending appeal is proper for the collection of actual damages?
In actual or compensatory damages, the amount is certain. Normally, there are receipts. The
amount is based on evidence.
But the award for moral or exemplary damages is uncertain and indefinite. It is based
on abstract factors like sleepless nights, besmirched reputation. It is hard to quantify it based
on evidence.
The SC said, in many cases the trial court awards a huge amount for exemplary damages
but on appeal, the CA refused to award or totally eliminate the award. So, if the award of
moral or exemplary damages is not certain or fixed, the execution pending appeal may not
be proper to enforce its execution.
Sec. 3. Stay of discretionary execution. - Discretionary execution issued

under the preceding section may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a
sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against whom it is directed,
conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed to be executed
in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part. The bond thus given
may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. (3a)
Q: Now, assuming that there is an execution pending appeal in favor of the plaintiff under Section 2
and I am the defendant, is there a way for me to stop the execution pending appeal?
A: Your remedy is to apply Section 3. The defendant will now ask the court to fix a supersedeas
bond to stop the execution pending appeal. The bond will answer for any damages that the plaintiff
may suffer if the defendant’s appeal is not meritorious.
And once the supersedeas bond is filed, the court has to withdraw the execution pending appeal.
Supersedeas bond under Section 3 is conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order
allowed to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part.
GENERAL RULE: When a defendant puts up a supersedeas bond, the court shall recall the
execution pending appeal because discretionary execution is the exception rather than the general rule.
EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the filing of the supersedeas bond by the appellant, execution
pending appeal may still be granted by the court IF THERE ARE SPECIAL AND COMPELLING
REASONS justifying the same outweighing the security offered by the supersedeas bond. (De Leon vs.
Soriano, 95 Phil. 806)
Lakas Atenista 10
EXAMPLE OF EXCEPTION: Judgment for SUPPORT. The same may be executed pending appeal
even notwithstanding the filing of a supersedeas bond by the appellant. (De Leon vs. Soriano, 95 Phil.
806) Support is something which should not be delayed. What is the use of the supersedeas bond when
the need of the plaintiff is today and not 5 or 6 weeks from now? [aber?]
Alright, let us go to the next important classification of execution. The other classification as to the
manner of enforcement could be by MOTION or by INDEPENDENT ACTION.
EXECUTION BY MOTION
EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and

executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from
the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by
the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived
judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of
its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of
limitations. (6a)
Q: How do you execute a judgment?

A: You file a motion for execution before the same court which rendered the judgment.
Q: How is the execution enforced?

A: There are two 2 modes under Section 6:
1.) Execution by motion – within five (5) years from the date of its entry; and
2.) Execution by independent action – within five (5) to ten (10) years.
Execution BY MOTION means that the prevailing party shall ask the court to issue a writ of
execution by simply filing a motion in the same case.
EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff and I have a judgment here against the defendant. I do not know of
any assets of the defendant because the defendant for the meantime is as poor as a rat. But after a
certain period of time he becomes a wealthy man. All I have to do is to file a motion and the court will
order the execution, provided the motion is filed within 5 years from the date of the entry of judgment.
The date of the entry of judgment and the date of finality are the same (Rule 36, Section 2).
Q: Suppose the defendant becomes rich after 5 years, can I still file a motion to execute?
A: No more, because execution by motion must be filed within 5 years only from the date of its
entry. If the judgment was not executed within the 5-year period, the judgment has become dormant.
Q: What is a dormant judgment?

A: A DORMANT judgment is one that was not executed within 5 years.
Q: So, how can that (dormant) judgment be awaken?

A: The procedure is to file another civil action. A civil action for revival of judgment. That is what
you call EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION which must be filed before it is barred by the
statute of limitations. The second sentence states, “after the lapse of such time (which is 5 years) and before it
is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.”
Q: When will it be barred by the statute of limitations ?

A: According to Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, the judgment may be enforced only within ten
(10) years.
Therefore, since the judgment will be enforced by motion for five (5) years, then after the fifth year,
it will be enforced by independent action. So, I will start the civil action for revival of judgment
between or after the 5th year but before the 10th year. So, that is what we have to remember.
Lakas Atenista 11
Q: Do you mean to tell me that I have to file the case all over again, practically repeating what
happened 5 years ago?
A: NO, because the judgment in the independent action is a judgment reviving the first judgment.
For example, more than 5 years ago I sued you to collect on a promissory note and you alleged
payment, and you lost and the court said that you are liable to me. On the seventh year when I revived
that judgment, my rights are no longer based or derived on the promissory note but on such judgment.
But you can still invoke other defenses such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud. But you cannot question the
correctness of the original judgment because that is already res adjudicata. You are entitled to put up
any defense that you have against me provided that you cannot question the correctness of the original
judgment. That is the rule.
Q: Discuss briefly the nature of the action for enforcement of a dormant judgment.
A: The action for enforcement of a dormant judgment is an ordinary civil action the object of which
is two-fold, namely, (a) to revive the dormant judgment, and (b) to execute the judgment reviving it, if
it grants the plaintiff any relief. Hence, the rights of the judgment-creditor depend upon the second
judgment. Being an ordinary civil action, it is subject to all defenses, objections and counterclaims
which the judgment-debtor may have except that no inquiry can be made as to the merits of the first
judgment. Therefore, defenses that do not go to the merits of the first judgment, such as lack of
jurisdiction, collusion, fraud, or prescription, may be set sup by the judgment-debtor. (Cia. Gral. De
Tabacos vs. Martinez, 17 Phil. 160; Salvante vs. Ubi Cruz, 88 Phil. 236) [Taken from Remedial Law
Reviewer by Nuevas]
Q: Give the exception to the rule on dormant judgment.

A: The only exception is the judgment for support which does not become dormant, nor does it
prescribe. You can execute it anytime even beyond the 5-year period and any unpaid installment may
be executed by motion. (Florendo vs. Organo, 90 Phil. 483) So, even if the judgment is more than 5
years old, the defendant defaulted on the seventh year, you just file a motion to collect that judgment.
Q: Suppose the judgment was executed and the property of the defendant was levied on the 4th
year, and the next stage is the auction sale.
A: The SC said the auction sale must also be WITHIN 10 years. So, even if the property was levied,
the auction sale must be within 10 years. Not only the levy of the property must be done within 10
years but also the including the auction sale, otherwise, any auction sale done beyond 10 years in null
and void.
Now, look at the last sentence in Section 6: “The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within
five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.”
For example, I have here a judgment nine (9) years ago. I want to enforce it by action to revive
judgment. You mean to tell me that the revived judgment is good for another ten (10) years? Another 5
years for motion to a right of action and then I can still revive it within 10 years?
Alright, in the original case of PNB vs. BONDOC (14 SCRA 770), the SC said that the period applies
all over again from the finality of the revived judgment. So, you have another ten (10) years. However,
this principle is abandoned in the later case of PNB vs. VELOSO (32 SCRA 266), the SC said that the
original period is only computed from the date of the original judgment.
And of course, because of those 2 conflicting cases, the court resolved those issues in the case of
LUZON SURETY CO. vs. IAC (151 SCRA 652) where the SC said, the later doctrine of VELOSO
prevails. So, with that ruling, the 10-year period applies only from the date of the original judgment,
but you cannot say that once it is revived, you have another 10 years.
But now, you look at the new law: “The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5)
years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.” Ano
yan? That is a revival of the BONDOC ruling! Binalik yung original ruling which is, the revived
judgment is good for another 10 years.
Lakas Atenista 12
So, I repeat, the last sentence has resurrected the ruling in the case of PNB vs. BONDOC and
superseded again LUZON vs. IAC. You are entitled to another 10 years from the date of the revived
judgment.
ILLUSTRATION:
Example: First judgment became final in 1990. You can enforce that until 2000 by motion (1990-
1995) or by independent action (1995 – 2000). Suppose in 2000, you were able to secure a second
judgment reviving the first judgment, under the new rules, there is another ten years. The first
judgment by motion. The next 5 years is by independent action. So, to illustrate:
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
5 years 5 years 5 years 5 years

by motion by independent action by motion by independent action
10 years 10 years
Article 1144, Civil Code last sentence of Section 6
ARCENAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

299 SCRA 733 (December 4, 1998)
HELD: “The purpose of the action for revival of a judgment is not to modify the original
judgment subject of the action but is merely to give a creditor a new right of enforcement from
the date of revival.”
“The rule seeks to protect judgment creditors from wily and unscrupulous debtors who,
in order to evade attachment or execution, cunningly conceal their assets and wait until the
statute of limitation sets in.”
Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. - In case of the death of a

party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee, upon the application of his
executor or administrator, or successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, against his executor or
administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of
real or personal property, or the enforcement of a lien thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is actually
levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction of
the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale shall account to the
corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his hands. (7a)
This is related to Rule 3, Section 20.
Q: What is the effect of a death of a party on the execution of a judgment?

A: The following:
1.) If it is the obligee (the creditor) will die after he wins the case, his executor or administrator,
his legal representative or his heirs and successors in interest can enforce the judgment.
They will be the one to collect. (paragraph [a])
2.) If it is the defendant (obligor) who dies and there is final judgment which is recovery of real
or personal property, the judgment is executed against the administrator or executor
because this is an action which survives. (paragraph [b]);
Lakas Atenista 13
3.) Under par. (c), it is the death of the obligor in a money claim. This is related to Rule 3,
Section 20. However, the timing of the death is different. Let us connect these with Rule
3, Sec. 20:
Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. - When the action is for
recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant
dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending
at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained
by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in
these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
(21a)
So, for EXAMPLE: A filed a case against B to collect an unpaid loan. What is the effect to the case if
B dies? It will depend on what stage of the case he dies. If he died before final judgment could be
rendered by the court (before entry of final judgment), there will be a substitution of party and the case
will continue until entry of final judgment.
Suppose, there is already entry of final judgment and he dies, it will depend whether there was
already a levy on execution. Meaning, there was already entry of final judgment but before the
property is levied. This should not apply in Rule 39 because Section 7 [c] states that “after execution is
levied.”
But my question is no levy. The procedure there is found in the Special Proceedings. The judgment
shall be enforced in the manner provided for by the Rules on claims against the estate of the deceased
under Rule 86. And that is also mentioned in Rule 3, Section 20. It shall be enforced in the manner
provided for against the estate.
Q: Suppose the defendant dies when there is already a levy. What will happen?
A: The auction sale will proceed as scheduled in connection with Section 7 [c] because the law says
“the same may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation.” Meaning, the auction sale or the
execution sale shall proceed as scheduled. No more substitution here.
So that question, “What is the effect of the death of a party on a pending civil case” is a question with so
many angles – anong klaseng kaso?; is it one which is personal in nature or not?; if it is not, is it one
which survives or one which does not?; if it does not survive, who died?; the plaintiff or the defendant?
– if it is the defendant, did he die before entry of final judgment?; did he die after entry of final
judgment but before there could be levy or execution?; or did he die after levy or execution? – This last
question is answered by Section 7 [c].
Sec. 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution. - The writ of

execution shall:
(1) issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which
granted the motion;
(2) state the name of the court, the case number and title, the dispositive
part of the subject judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or other
proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ according to its
terms, in the manner hereinafter provided:
(a) If the execution be against the property of the judgment obligor, to
satisfy the judgment, with interest, out of the real or personal property of
such judgment obligor;
(b) If it be against real or personal property in the hands of personal
representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, tenants, or trustees of the judgment
obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with interest, out of such property;
(c) If it be for the sale of real or personal property, to sell such
property, describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the judgment,
the material parts of which shall be recited in the writ of execution.
(d) If it be for the delivery of the possession of real or personal property,
to deliver the possession of the same, describing it, to the party entitled
thereto, and to satisfy any costs, damages, rents, or profits covered by the
judgment out of the personal property of the person against whom it was
rendered, and if sufficient personal property cannot be found, then out of the
real property; and
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall specifically state the amount
of the interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits due as of the date of the
Lakas Atenista 14
issuance of the writ, aside from the principal obligation under the judgment.
For this purpose, the motion for execution shall specify the amounts of the
foregoing reliefs sought by the movant. (8a)
WRIT OF EXECUTION is actually the document which is issued by the court addressed to the
sheriff. The writ is actually the instruction to the sheriff on what he should do. It would depend on
what kind of decision – is it an action for sum of money or is it for recovery of real property?
Mimeographed iyan, addressed to the sheriff. These are standard forms in court.
Now, with respect to Section 8, the changes can be found in paragraph [e] which mandates now
that the writ of execution must state the exact amount to be collected. That is why according to the last
sentence of paragraph [e], “for this purpose, the motion for execution shall specify the amounts of the foregoing
reliefs sought by the movant.”
Normally, when lawyers file a motion to execute they will just quote the principal, but they do not
state the costs or interests. Now, under the new rule, when you file the motion for execution, you must
also state how much is the costs or interests.
EXECUTION OF MONEY JUDGMENT
How do you execute judgment for money? Contractual debts or damages. Example, the defendant
is ordered to pay defendant P1 million with interest, how does the sheriff enforce that? Section 9
provides a detailed explanation on how judgment for money is enforced. Let us go over the first
paragraph:
Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. -
(a) Immediate payment on demand. - The officer shall enforce an execution of

a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate
payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees.
The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the
amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment
obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The
lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who
shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the
court that issued the writ.
STEPS: (under paragraph [a])

1.) The sheriff must demand payment from the obligor;
2.) The obligor can pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee (creditor)
or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter. Kung sabihin ng obligor: “Yung
kotse ko na lang.” That will be alright so long as it is also alright with the obligee;
3.) The payment shall go to the obligee;
4.) The lawful fees shall be paid to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount
within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ.
This assumes that the obligee is present with sheriff. Suppose the creditor is not around? Let us go
to the second paragraph:
Section 9 [a], 2nd par. – If the judgment obligee or his authorized

representative is not present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall
deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall turn
over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerk
of court of the court that issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable,
deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository
bank of the Regional Trial Court of the locality.
If the plaintiff is not there, the payment is made to the sheriff and he is supposed to endorse it to the
clerk of court. The clerk of court will look for the obligee to remit the money.
Lakas Atenista 15
In the second sentence, this usually happens if the execution is to be done outside of the locality.
For example, the decision in Davao will be enforced in Cotabato. So, the sheriff in Cotabato will be the
one to enforce and he will give the payment to the clerk of court there who in turn will transmit the
money to the clerk of court in Davao. This is because the decision to be executed is one in Davao.
Let us go to the third paragraph:
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the remittance of the
deposit to the account of the court that issued the writ whose clerk of court
shall then deliver said payment to the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the
judgment. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment obligor while
the lawful fees shall be retained by the clerk of court for disposition as
provided by law. In no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment
by check be made payable to him.
This assumes that the property of the defendant which was levied in Cotabato but judgment is one
which originated in Davao – clerk to clerk.
The last sentence says “In no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by check be made
payable to him.” It shall be payable to the obligee. I think what the SC would like to avoid here is that
which happened in the case of PAL – a labor case where PAL paid check payable to the sheriff. The
sheriff ran away with the check. PAL was made to pay all over again.
(b) Satisfaction by levy. - If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of
the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment acceptable
to the judgment obligee, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the
judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed of
for value and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option
to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon,
sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise
the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, and
then on the real properties if the personal properties are sufficient to answer
for the judgment.
So, under paragraph [a], the first step is when the judgment debtor has enough money, bayaran
niya in cash or check.
Q: Suppose walang pera, or the cash is not sufficient. What will the sheriff do?
A: He shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor not otherwise exempt from execution.
In the vernacular term, sasabihing ‘na-sheriff’ ka.
Q: Define levy.
A: Levy is the act whereby a sheriff sets apart or appropriates, for the purpose of satisfying the
command of the writ, a part or the whole of the judgment-debtor’s property. (Valenzuela vs. De
Aguilar, L-18083-84, May 31, 1963) Normally, this is done on personal property. Kung lupa naman,
they will annotate on the title. Parang mortgage ba.
Q: What is the importance of levy with respect to execution of a money judgment?

A: Levy is a pre-requisite to the auction sale. In order that an execution sale may be valid, there
must be a previous valid levy. A sale not preceded by a valid levy is void and the purchaser acquires
no title. (Valenzuela vs. De Aguilar, L-18083-84, May 31, 1963)
Q: What kind of property can be levied?

A: Any – real, personal, tangible, intangible – except those properties exempt from execution.
Q: Does the debtor has the right to tell the sheriff what property he should levy?
A: YES. The law gives the debtor or defendant the option to immediately choose which property or
part thereof may be levied upon sufficient to satisfy the judgment. Example: I am the debtor and I have
Lakas Atenista 16
many properties. And the sheriff would like to levy on my house and lot, or ‘yung Toyota Altis ko.
Under the law, I have the right to choose among them.
The phrase “giving the latter the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied
upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment.” This did not appear under the old law. This is taken from the
case of PHILIPPINE MILLS vs. DAYRIT (192 SCRA 177), where the SC said the debtor is given the
option of which property shall be levied.
And the sequence of levying is to levy the personal properties first. Then real properties if personal
properties are not sufficient.
Under the second paragraph of [b], when the sheriff levies on the property of the judgment debtor
and the judgment debtor has more than sufficient property to cover the judgment debt, the sheriff
cannot levy all the properties. Or else, he will be made liable. For example, the debt is only P 30,000,
tapos ang i-levy mo kotse (Toyota Altis) at bahay, which worth millions? My golly! That’s too much!
You sell only up to the point that the judgment will be satisfied.
Q: But if it is real property or intangible personal property like shares of stock, debts, credits
(collectibles), can you levy on these?
A: YES. And under the last paragraph of [b] They may be levied upon in like manner and with like
effect as under a writ of attachment under Rule 57 on attachment.
GARNISHMENT – HOW TO LEVY
Paragraph [c] of Section 9 is on how to levy intangibles. When you want to levy or you want to
execute on intangible property, the legal term there is garnishment.
(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. - The officer may levy on debts due the
judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial
interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of
manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties. Levy shall be
made by serving notice upon the person owing such debts or having in his
possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor is entitled.
The garnishment shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and
all lawful fees.
The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five (5) days
from service of the notice of garnishment stating whether or not the judgment
obligor has sufficient funds or credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment.
If not, the report shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee holds for
the judgment obligor. The garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check
issued in the name of the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the
judgment obligee within ten (10) working days from service of notice on said
garnishee requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees which shall be paid
directly to the court.
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding deposits or credits
sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment obligor, if available, shall
have the right to indicate the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to
deliver the amount due; otherwise, the choice shall be made by the judgment
obligee.
The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure under paragraph (a)
with respect to delivery of payment to the judgment obligee. (8a, 15a)
Q: So, what are these properties which may be the subject of garnishment?
A: Credits which include bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other
personal property not capable of manual delivery – intangibles bah! You send a notice upon the person
owing such debts or having in his possession or control such credits. And it shall cover only such
amount as will satisfy the judgment.
Example of garnishment: bank account. I will file a case against you, talo ka. I learned that you
have a deposit with Sanikoh Bank. Puwede kong habulin yan ba, because that is credit. In obligations
and contracts, the relationship of the depositor and the bank is that of a creditor and debtor. It is not a
Lakas Atenista 17
contract of deposit because actually, the bank is borrowing money from you. Kaya nga, it pays you
interest eh.
So, under garnishment, the bank is being commanded not to pay you but instead pay the sheriff.
Yaan!! Yan ang concept ng garnishment. Garnishee refers to the debtor, like the bank. When the bank
deposit is garnished, the second paragraph tell us what the bank will do. And if there are 2 or more
banks na ma-garnish, under the next paragraph, the debtor obligor will determine. If he does not
exercise his option, then the judgment creditor will determine.
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OTHER THAN MONEY
Section 10 is the procedure for executing a judgment other than to collect money. Sometimes,
money is only incidental. There are court decisions could be something else like specific performance,
or accion publiciana. You are more interested in recovering your property. Another is Unlawful
Detainer where unpaid rentals may be paid but the plaintiff is more interested in the ejectment – the
unpaid rentals can be collected in the same manner as Section 9.
Sec. 10. Execution of judgments of specific act. -

(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts; vesting title. -
If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal
property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other
specific act in connection therewith, and the party fails to comply within the
time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the
disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when
so done shall have like effect as if done by the party. If real or personal
property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a
conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any party and vest it in
others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due
form of law. (10a)
x x x x x
EXAMPLES of the first sentence:

1.) An action for reconveyance of property where you are asking the defendant, a title owner,
to convey to you his property. The property will be held in trust or that the title be in your
name instead of his;
2.) Pacto de retro. I sold to you my land and I am repurchasing it, pero ayaw mo. You refuse to
execute a deed of sale returning the property to me;
3.) Public Land Law. I am the owner of a property under homestead or free patent and sold it
after the prohibition period. Under the public land law, I have the right to repurchase it
within 5 years. Ayaw mong ibalik, so idemanda kita. Of course, if I win, you will be
directed to return to me the property and execute a deed of sale.
4.) An action for specific performance to compel you to return to me said property. And the
court will order: “Alright, execute a deed of sale.” You refuse. The court may order the clerk of
court to sign the deed of sale or the Register of Deeds will be ordered to register the same as
if done by the obligor. The obligor’s signature is not needed.
(b) Sale of real or personal property. - If the judgment be for the sale of
real or personal property, to sell such property, describing it, and apply the
proceeds in conformity with the judgment. (8 [c] a)
The best example for [b] is an action for termination of co-ownership where there are 50 co-owners
of one (1) hectare – the property will be ordered sold and the proceeds will be distributed among the
co-owners.
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. - The officer shall demand of

the person against whom the judgment for the delivery or restitution of real
property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably
vacate the property within three (3) working days, and restore possession
thereof to the judgment obligee; otherwise, the officer shall oust all such
persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, or appropriate peace
Lakas Atenista 18
officers, and employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to retake

possession, and place the judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any
costs, damages, rents or profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in
the same manner as a judgment for money. (13a)
Now, with respect to Section 10, particularly paragraph [c] – delivery or restitution of real property.
– this is applicable to actions for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion publiciana.
Q: So, what is the procedure?

A: The sheriff will give the defendant the chance to vacate the property, “I am giving you the chance
to vacate within three (3) working days and restore possession thereof.” And then ayaw mo pa rin, I will use
force to oust you with the assistance of the appropriate peace officers and place the judgment obligee in
possession of such property.
And if there are damages or unpaid rentals, I will also levy the property under Section 9. Because
sometimes, aside from ousting the defendant, meron pang money judgment like unpaid rentals. So,
the property of the defendant may be levied. That is the procedure.
In the 1995 case of

SAN MANUEL vs. TUPAS
249 SCRA 466
HELD: “The immediate enforcement of a writ of ejectment execution is carried out by

giving the defendant a notice of such writ and making a demand that defendant comply
therewith within a reasonable period, normally from three (3) to five (5) days, and it is only
after such period that the sheriff enforces the writ by the bodily removal of the defendant
and his personal belongings.”
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. - When the

property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted
by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or
remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon
motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed
to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. (14a)
Q: When you oust the defendant in regard of a possession case, is a writ of execution a sufficient
basis for the removal of improvements of the property?
A: NO. Under paragraph [d], the plaintiff or judgment obligee still have to get a special order from
the court by filing a petition to authorize the destruction or removal of the improvements of the
property after the defendant is given a reasonable time to remove his shanty or house voluntarily.
In other words, there must be a special order. The writ of execution only authorizes you to oust the
defendant physically, but not to destroy any property. Just like in squatters, you need a special order
for demolition.
(e) Delivery of personal property. - In judgments for the delivery of

personal property, the officer shall take possession of the same and forthwith
deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy any judgment for money as
therein provided. (8a)
Paragraph [e] is related to REPLEVIN – action to recover personal property – where the plaintiff is
trying to repossess a personal property from the defendant. For example, bili ka ng appliance tapos
hindi mo nabayaran, babawiin yan ng appliance center. Or, the finance company or the car dealer will
resort to replevin to recover the unit by filing an action for replevin against the buyer.
Take note that the procedure for enforcing a money judgment is different from enforcing a
judgment for ejectment, or recovery of possession. Enforcement of money judgment is in Section 9 –
you get the money. Kung walang money, you levy on the property of the defendant. If it is ejectment or
recovery of possession of property, you follow Section 10, paragraph [c].
Lakas Atenista 19
Now, here is an interesting case involving these two sections (Sections 9 & 10) –the 1995 case of
ABINUJAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS

243 SCRA 531
FACTS: The case of Abinujar started when the plaintiff filed a case for unlawful detainer
against the Abinujar spouses for the latter to vacate their house in Manila. When the case
was going on, the parties executed a compromise agreement which became the basis of the
judgment by the court, so a compromise judgment.
The agreement stated that the Abinujar spouses shall pay the plaintiffs the amount
specifically agreed upon: P50,000 on January 31; P10,000 on Febrauary 28; P10,000 on March
31, etc. until September 30. It further states that failure on the part of the Abinujar spouses to
pay three (3) consecutive payments, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to a writ of execution.
After three (3) months, the plaintiffs filed a motion for execution on the ground that the
Abinujars failed to pay the three installments. The trial court granted the motion and the
notice to the defendant to voluntarily vacate the premises was served on the Abinujars.
The Abinujars attacked the validity of the sheriff’s notice to vacate by way of enforcing
the compromise judgment. They maintained that their obligation is monetary and therefore
you should apply Section 9 – you collect but do not eject us. The plaintiffs argued that what
is applicable is Section 10 on ejectment because this is an unlawful detainer case.
ISSUE: Which section shall be applied – Section 9? or Section 10?
HELD: The contention of the Abinujars is meritorious – meaning, you cannot eject the
Abinujars.
“When the parties entered into a compromise agreement, the original action for
ejectment was set aside and the action was changed to a monetary obligation.
“A perusal of the compromise agreement signed by the parties and approved by the
inferior court merely provided that in case the Abinujars failed to pay three monthly
installments, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a writ of execution, without specifying what
the subject of execution would be. Said agreement did not state that Abinujars would be
evicted from the premises subject of the suit in case of any default in complying with their
obligation thereunder. This was the result of the careless drafting thereof for which only
plaintiffs were to be blamed.
“As Abinujar’s obligation under the compromise agreement as approved by the court
was monetary in nature, plaintiffs can avail only of the writ of execution provided in Section
9, and not that provided in Section 10.”
ORDINARY AND SPECIAL JUDGMENT
Sec. 11. Execution of special judgments. - When a judgment requires the

performance of any act other than those mentioned in the two preceding sections,
a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of execution and
shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is rendered,
or upon any other person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such
party or person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment. (9a)
There are two (2) types of judgment under the law: (1) SPECIAL and (2) ORDINARY.
ORDINARY JUDGMENT - if the judgment orders the defendant to pay money, like a collection
case (Section 9) or to deliver real or personal property (Section 10).
SPECIAL JUDGMENT – is a judgment which requires the defendant to perform an act other than
payment of money or delivery of property. It refers to a specific act which a party or person must
personally do because his personal qualifications and circumstances have been taken into
consideration.
Lakas Atenista 20
EXAMPLE of a special judgment: Usurpation of government office. You are the city treasurer and
somebody else is appointed city treasurer and you refuse to vacate. So there will be a quo warranto
proceeding. Then the judgment will order you to vacate your position, such judgment is a special
judgment because you are not ordered to pay anything nor deliver property.
Q: What is the difference between the Ordinary and Special judgments?

A: A special judgment may be enforced by contempt if the defendant refuses to comply with the
judgment. But if it is an ordinary judgment and the defendant refuses to comply, it is not a ground for
contempt.
Under Section 9, if the judgment-debtor refuses to pay his debt, you cannot cite him in contempt
because under the Constitution, no person shall be imprisoned for debt. The correct procedure under
Section 9 is you look for properties of the defendant and then ipa-levy mo. You do not send the debtor
to jail.
Under Section 10 if the squatter refuses to vacate, you cannot cite him in contempt and send him to
jail. Kung ayaw, you get police for back up. That is the procedure.
But under Section 11, if defendant is ordered to vacate his office because he is no longer the city
treasurer, the plaintiff can have him arrested and brought to jail because that is a special judgment
which can be enforced by contempt.
Q: Give an specific rule on special judgment.

A: Section 9 of Rule 65 – Special Civil Action for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, to wit:
Rule 65, Sec 9. Service and enforcement of order or judgment.- A certified

copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last preceding section
shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct, and
disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution may issue for
any damages or costs awarded in accordance with section 1 of Rule 39. (9a)
Therefore, a judgement in a certiorari, prohibition or mandamus case, if not complied with, is

punishable by contempt.
Sec. 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third persons. - The levy on

execution shall create a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over the right,
title and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at the time of the
levy, subject to liens and encumbrances then existing. (16a)
This is related to Property Registration Decree.
EXAMPLE: I own a piece of land which I mortgaged with the bank. The bank annotated the
mortgage on my title. My land is now subject to a lien or an encumbrance. I also owe money to A. He
sued me. He won and my land is levied.
Q: What happens to the mortgage lien of the bank? Will it be affected by the levy of A?
A: NO. Even if the property is sold at public auction and we will assume that it will go to A, that
property is still under mortgage. A has to respect the lien – nauna yung sa bank eh! Wherever the
property goes, it is subject to the mortgage lien of the bank because the bank’s lien is superior.
Therefore, an execution is always subject to the liens and encumbrances of the property then
existing.
PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION
We already discussed the rule that to satisfy a money judgment, the sheriff can levy on the
properties of the judgment obligor. All properties are subject, except those exempt from execution.
What are the properties of a defendant-debtor which cannot be subject to a levy or execution?
Lakas Atenista 21
Sec. 13. Property exempt from execution. - Except as otherwise expressly

provided by law, the following property, and no other, shall be exempt from
execution:
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or the homestead
in which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection therewith;
You have a house where your family resides. You call it “FAMILY HOME” – it is the house where
the members of the family reside, including the lot.
Q: For instance, you lost in a case where you are liable for P200T. You have no other property left
except that house where you live. Can the sheriff levy the house to answer such obligations?
A: NO. The judgment obligor’s family home and the land necessarily used in connection therewith
is exempt. That is a guarantee that no matter how many obligations you have, there is no way for you
to be thrown to the street – to be a homeless person. Your house cannot be levied; but in the Family
Code, there’s a limit, if your house is a mansion worth millions, that is not exempt. Please review your
Family Code on this matter.
(b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his trade,
employment, or livelihood;
This is self-explanatory. If you are a carpenter, you earn your living by being a carpenter. What are
the ordinary tools that you must have? Saw, hammer, etc. By public policy and by legal provision, the
tools and implements used by a carpenter in his trade, employment, or livelihood cannot be levied by
the sheriff.
Under the prior law, there was no word “ordinary” and “personally”. The old law says, “tools and
implements used by him”. In the new rules, the words “ordinary” and “personally” are added. What is the
reason behind this? This provision is in accordance with what the SC ruled in the 1990 case of
PENTAGON SECURITY vs. JIMENEZ

192 SCRA 492
FACTS: The Pentagon Security and Investigation Agency (PSIA) is a security agency
owned by somebody who is engaged in security services. Because of a money judgment
against the agency in a labor case, the sheriff levied all the firearms of the agency. PSIA
claimed that the firearms are exempt from execution under paragraph [b] since they are
tools and implements used by the agency in its trade, employment or livelihood because
how can a security agency operate without firearms.
ISSUE: Is the argument of PSIA correct?
HELD: NO. The firearms owned by PSIA are not covered by the exemption.
“The term ‘tools and implements’ refers to instruments of husbandry or manual labor
needed by an artisan craftsman or laborer to obtain his living. Here, PSIA is a business
enterprise. It does not use the firearms personally, but they are used by its employees. Not
being a natural person, petitioner cannot claim that the firearms are necessary for its
livelihood.”
“It would appear that the exemption contemplated by the provision involved is
personal, available only to a natural person, such as a dentist’s dental chair and electric fan.
If properties used in business are exempt from execution, there can hardly be an instance
when a judgment claim can be enforced against the business entity.”
Meaning, if the exemption is extended to a juridical person like a corporation, then practically all
the properties needed by the business could be considered as tools and implements. For EXAMPLE,
you will sue a carrier like Bachelor Bus and you won. Then you will levy on the bus. Bachelor will
claims exemption because that is a tool or implement.
Or, you file a case against PAL. They lost. You levy on the airbus. PAL alleged exemption because it
is a tool or implement. My golly! Lahat ng properties, “tools or implements!”? Di pwede yan! That is not
what the law contemplates.
Lakas Atenista 22
Now, what is interesting in the PENTAGON case is that the SC says that firearms can be levied,
they can be sold at public auction. SC: “However, for security reasons, and to prevent the possibility
that the firearms to be sold at the execution sale may fall into the hands of lawless and subversive
elements, the sale at public auction should be with the prior clearance and under supervision of the
PNP.” Otherwise, the persons who might bid are kidnappers, NPA, Abu Sayyaff, (Kuratong Baleleng,
MILF, MNLF, Lost Command, Kulto Pinish, Polgas, PAOCTF, Osama bin Laden et al, etc.) So, there
must be a prior clearance on the sale of the firearms during the auction sale.
(c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts of

burden, such as the judgment obligor may select necessarily used by him in his
ordinary occupation;
For example, you are a farmer. You plow your land by a carabao. You cannot levy the carabao. OR,
if you are a cochero, you have a horse for your caretela. You cannot levy the horse. [ang horse shit,
pwede! Pero yung horse mismo, di pwede!] And under the prior rules, only 2 horses, 2 cows or
carabaos are exempt. The new rules make it three (3).
(d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding
jewelry;
You cannot levy on the debtor’s wardrobe. These are articles for ordinary personal use. This article
excludes jewelry. Alahas, pwede i-levy. All other things for basic needs are exempt, like personal
comb, toothbrush, etc.
(e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and used
for that purpose by the judgment obligor and his family, such as the judgment
obligor may select, of a value not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos;
Household furniture like dining table, dining chair, sala set, utensils necessary for housekeeping
and used for the purpose by the obligor and his family like plates, forks, spoons. How can you eat
without those utensils. BUT there’s a limit that the value does not exceed P100,000. If the value exceeds,
it can be levied.
There was a sheriff who asked me (Dean I). According to him, he was enforcing a money
judgment. The sheriff went to the house of the debtor. He took the stereo, TV set, refrigerator.
Defendant said, “Hindi pwede dahil hindi pa umabot ng P100,000.” Sabi ko, you look at the law: You
cannot levy those furnitures if not exceeding P100,000. In my (Dean’s) view, covered yan. But utensils
not necessarily for living are not covered by the exemption. They are luxury, not necessary. These TV,
sala set, refrigerator can be levied because they are not necessary for living as contrasted to kutsara,
plato, etc. (Dean however refused to answer the sheriff whether the properties in question can be
levied. Tanungin mo ang abogado mo!)
(f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four months;
For example, one sack of rice for daily consumption, canned goods – provisions for consumption
good for 4 months are exempt. If you have one bodega of rice, ibang storya yan.
(g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians,

pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other
professional, not exceeding three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos in value;
Your books, books of judges and professionals and equipment – maybe the computer, typewriter,
dentist’s chair, equipment of engineers are exempt provided the value does not exceed P300,000.
(h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total value of one
hundred thousand (P100,000.00) pesos owned by a fisherman and by the lawful use
of which he earns his livelihood;
Lakas Atenista 23
Example: Fishing boat of a fisherman, the accessories – net, provided these do not exceed
P100,000.
(i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for
his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary
for the support of his family;
The salary of a person within 4 months is exempt. For example, you have backwages of 6 months.
Only 2 months salary can be levied. Exempt ang 4 months.
Technically, wages and salaries are exempt as long as they are necessary for support of living. If
you earn a minimum wage, everything may be exempted. But if you earn P50,000 a month and you
support only two people, the court may levy on the excess.
(j) Lettered gravestones;
Lapida sa sementeryo, hindi pwede i-levy. Why will you levy on lettered gravestones? My golly!
(k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner

growing out of any life insurance;
The proceeds of life insurance. The amount received by the beneficiaries cannot be levied, not a
single centavo.
(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as such
support, or any pension or gratuity from the Government;
The right to receive legal support. The right ba! For instance, ako na lang ang mag receive ng
support mo. Hindi pwede yan. Also the money given monthly to you if you are receiving support
cannot be levied. Any pension or gratuity from the government – GSIS pension, for example.
(m) Properties specially exempted by law.
This is very broad – any other property exempt by special law.
Q: Give an example where a property is exempt from execution under the special law?
A: The following:
1.) Property obtained pursuant to a free patent application, HOMESTEAD. That is not subject
to any claim within 5 years. You cannot even sell that within 5 years, how much more
kung embargohin sa iyo? That is under CA 141 – Public Land Law;
2.) Under Social Legislation, SSS benefits are also exempt from execution, just like GSIS
benefits;
3.) Under CARP law, the property acquired by a tenant under that law cannot be levied also.
Section 13, last paragraph:
But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall be

exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its price or upon a
judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon. (12a)
The last paragraph of Section 13 says that if for example, you ordered books and you failed to pay,
you cannot claim the exemption because the obligation arose from the same item. For example:
BAR PROBLEM: A lawyer went to Alemars professional books supply. He bought books worth half
a million. That was utang – P500,000. The store decided to sue the lawyer for such amount not paid.
The bookstore got a judgment. There was a levy on the lawyer’s property. The sheriff levied on the
Lakas Atenista 24
same books which became the source of the case. The lawyer claimed exemption under Section 13 up to
P300,000 because it forms part of his professional library. Is the lawyer correct??
A: the lawyer is WRONG because of the last paragraph of Section 13 that no article or species of
properties mentioned in this section shall be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered
for the price or upon a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
What the law says, is the properties mentioned here (in Section 13) are exempt, EXCEPT when that
debt arose out of that property. For example, here, why are you indebted to Alemars? Because of
unpaid books. So the very books which gave rise to an obligation are not exempt from execution.
But if another creditor will file a case against the lawyer, and that other creditor will win, that
creditor cannot levy on the books because they are exempt. But the creditor from whom the books were
bought can levy on the same books which gave rise to an obligation.
The same thing with FAMILY HOME. For example, you will build a family home and then, hindi
mo binayaran ang materials, labor and there was judgment against you. The creditor and the owner
can levy on the house. He cannot claim exemption because the debt arose out of that same family
home.
Another example: You borrowed money from the bank. You mortgaged your house. Later on, you
cannot pay the loan. The bank foreclosed the mortgage. You cannot argue that your house cannot be
levied. Kaya nga may utang ka because of your house. Since you mortgaged it, that is not covered by
the exemption.
Q: What is the REASON behind this exemption?

A: The reason for this exemption is PUBLIC POLICY. And common sense no? – the debtor should
pay but this should not deprive him of a means to earn his living. You can levy on his property but not
to the extent of depriving him of his provisions for support, means of livelihood by throwing him on to
the street, homeless, penniless, despondent, dejected, mournful, melancholy, forlorn…
LIFETIME OF WRIT OF EXECUTION – FIVE (5) YEARS
Sec. 14. Return of writ of execution. - The writ of execution shall be

returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been
satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full
within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report
to the court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect
during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The
officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the
proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its
effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole
of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof
promptly furnished the parties. (11a)
Under the OLD RULE, the lifetime of a writ of execution is only 60 days. After that, expired na
yung writ. The sheriff has to use the writ to levy on the property of the defendant within 60 days. If the
defendant has no property at present, and the writ has already expired, and assuming that there will
be some properties found in the future, the procedure under the old rules is, the plaintiff has to file a
motion for an ALIAS WRIT of execution, because once it is issued, it is again good for another 60 days.
Under the PRESENT RULE, the 60-day period is already obsolete. The effectivity now of a writ of
execution is, for as long as the judgment may be enforced by motion. And under Section 6, a judgment
may be enforced by motion within five (5) years. So in effect, the writ of execution is valid for FIVE (5)
years. The lifetime now has been extended from 60 days to 5 years.
Of course, as much as possible, the writ must be enforced within 30 days and after that, the sheriff
will tell the court about what happened after 30 days.
Lakas Atenista 25
So, the sheriff says based on the RETURN, “Wala pang property ang defendant.” Now, he just keeps
on holding the writ. And maybe after one or two years, meron na’ng property ang defendant, he can
now enforce the writ. But definitely, there is no need for the defendant to go back to the court to ask for
another alias writ of execution because the writ can still be enforced – for as long as the judgment may
be enforced by motion.
Although every 30 days, the sheriff has to make a periodic report with the court. I do not know if
the sheriffs here follow this procedure. But definitely, a writ is good for 5 years and in every 30 days,
the sheriff has to make a report.
NOTICE OF SALE
Sec. 15. Notice of sale of property on execution. - Before the sale of

property on execution, notice thereof must be given as follows:
(a) In case of perishable property, by posting written notice of the time and
place of the sale in three (3) public places, preferably in conspicuous areas of
the municipal or city hall, post office and public market in the municipality or
city where the sale is to take place, for such time as may be reasonable,
considering the character and condition of the property;
(b) In case of other personal property, by posting a similar notice in the
three (3) public places above-mentioned for not less that five (5) days;
(c) In case of real property, by posting for twenty (20) days in the three
(3) public places above-mentioned a similar notice particularly describing the
property and stating where the property is to be sold, and if the assessed value
of the property exceeds fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos, by publishing a copy
of the notice once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in one newspaper
selected by raffle, whether in English, Filipino, or any major regional language
published, edited and circulated or, in the absence thereof, having general
circulation in the province or city;
(d) In all case, written notice of the sale shall be given to the judgment
obligor, at least three (3) days before the sale, except as provided in
paragraph (a) hereof where notice shall be given at any time before the sale, in
the same manner as personal service of pleadings and other papers as provided by
section 6 of Rule 13.
The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time of the sale which
should not be earlier than nine o'clock in the morning and not later than two
o'clock in the afternoon. The place of the sale may be agreed upon by the
parties. In the absence of such agreement, the sale of real property or personal
property not capable of manual delivery shall be held in the office of the clerk
of court of the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court which issued
the writ or which was designated by the appellate court. In the case of personal
property capable of manual delivery, the sale shall be held in the place where
the property is located. (18a)
Auction sale follows levy. There must be notices because auction sale is open to the public. Notices
must be posted in 3 public places preferably in the municipal hall, post office and public market. In
paragraph [c], if the property to be sold is REAL property, the notices must describe the property, its
location, assessed value if exceeding P50,000. Aside from notices, the law requires PUBLICATION in a
newspaper so that many people can read it.
You try to go there in the Hall of Justice, may bulletin board diyan sa labas. Notices are posted
there. If you are interested in buying something, para mura, tingnan mo diyan.
The law is very detailed now. The notice must specify the date of the sale, time, place etc. And the
SC ruled that these requirements are to be strictly complied with.
For example: You do not comply with the posting in 3 conspicuous places. Dalawa lang sa iyo, that
is VOID. The SC said the requirements of the law for the holding of the public auction should be
strictly followed. Why? Because in a public auction, you are depriving somebody of his property – the
judgment debtor. So, all the requirements of the law intended to deprive the owner of his ownership
over his property should be followed.
Even lawyers sometimes do not pay much attention to this Rule 39. It is perhaps because of the
length of the rule or the length of the provisions. Lawyers usually have a general idea, not really the
details. Oftentimes, they rely on the sheriff eh. They presume that the sheriff knows more about the
Lakas Atenista 26
details because the latter is responsible for enforcing it. Actually, the sheriff knows less than the
lawyers because many of them are not lawyers naman eh.
Illustration based on Dean’s experience:
There is a property located in Panacan which is owned by Corporation X. Corporation X sold the
property to Corporation Y. (xx end of tape xx) Dean does not know who was at fault. Definitely, the
custodian, instead of registering the transaction in the Register of Deeds so that a title may be issued in
the name of the buyer, tinago! Nalimutan ang pag-register ng Deed of Sale. Yun pala, the seller,
Corporation X, has a creditor also in Davao. The creditor sued Corporation X for a sum of money.
Corporation X lost the case and the creditor looked for property to levy. He found that piece of land in
Panacan. Corporation X said, naibenta na iyan.
The buyer, Corporation Y did not know there was an auction sale of that property. The buyer
entered into a deal with a corporation in Japan. One of the requirements of the Japanese buyer is: please
list down all your assets, all your properties. Of course, Corporation Y included that land in Panacan in
the list. Saan man ang titulo? Walaaa. Nalimutan i-register.
Who should bear the loss?? The BUYER CORPORATION because he did not register the sale. He
was given the option to pay the loan plus P200,000 damages and interest. But if Rule 39 is to be
followed strictly, Dean says the sheriff cannot make it. Meron talagang malimutan because sheriffs
usually are not lawyers. Rule 39 is so detailed that you cannot easily follow the requirements. Isa-isahin
mo iyan, pag may nakita kang mali, you file a motion to annul the execution.
I (Dean) said: I will recommend to the plaintiff company na bayaran ka rin pero hindi naman
P200,000. Masyadong malaki yan. Nakabayad na ang buyer sa owner tapos babayaran pa rin ang utang
sa creditor? I talked to the corporation and made a compromise. We settled for P80,000. Kung ayaw
niya ituloy ang kaso. Hindi nga na-register and Deed of Sale pero mali-mali naman ang levy. What if
ma-annul ang levy, the plaintiff will get nothing. Chances are, hahabulin niya ang seller ng property.
So, this is an example of a dead case being resurrected to life because of the principle: nagkamali ang
sheriff sa execution. Dean also stressed that if the trial for annulment of the execution proceeds, the
court might dismiss it because the sheriff’s mistakes ay maliit lang. It’s not really substantial. But Dean
is proud that he had succeeded to scare the plaintiff! [ehem!]
TERCERIA (THIRD-PARTY CLAIM)
SECTION 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. – If the

property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or
his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to
the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves
the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment
obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such
judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court
to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the
property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be
determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for
the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless
the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty days from the date of the
filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the
property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his
claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from
claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party claimant
who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall
not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages
as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if
held liable therefore, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by
the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
(17a)
Section 16 is a third-party claim procedure in execution. In Spanish, it is called the remedy of

TERCERIA.
Lakas Atenista 27
ILLUSTRATION: Lolo decided to go on a prolong vacation and he entrusted to Karen (ang paborito
ni Lolo) all his personal property like appliances – TV, refrigerator, car, etc. Karen used the property
owned by Lolo while he was not around. Unknown to Lolo, Karen has a pending civil case filed by
Gina. Gina obtained a judgment against Karen. There was levy on execution. The sheriff went to the
premises of Karen, he found all these properties and he enforced the levy.
Lolo came home and went to get the property from Karen. Karen said, they were all levied by the
sheriff. Lolo is a person who is not the defendant but his properties were erroneously levied because
the sheriff thought they belong to Karen who was in possession of them.
Q: What is the remedy of Lolo who is not a defendant?
A: The remedy is to apply Section 16, Rule 39 – You file with the sheriff, copy furnish Gina, what is
known as the third-party claim or TERCERIA. Terceria is an affidavit asserting that he is the owner of
the property levied. So with that the sheriff is now placed on guard because the sheriff may be held
liable if he continues to sell the property of the defendant. So, he is not bound to the proceedings
regarding the sale unless the judgment obligee, on demand of the sheriff, files a bond approved by the
court to indemnify a third party claimant in the sum not less than the value of the property levied on.
Suppose sabi ni Gina: “Huwag kang maniwala diyan. Kalokohan iyan. Drama lang yan ni Karen at Lolo.
Proceed with the auction sale!” Gina has to file a bond if he insists that the auction sale must proceed.
Gina must put up a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant, a sum not less
than the value of the property. If the property is worth half a million, the bond must also be half a
million. Then auction sale may proceed because there’s already a bond to answer for the damages. The
sale may go on despite the third party claim.
THIRD-PARTY CLAIM vs. THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
Now, do not confuse a third-party claim under Rule 39 with a third-party complaint under Rule 6.
Q: What is a third-party complaint under Rule 6?

A: A third-party complaint under Rule 6 is a PLEADING filed by a defendant against the third
person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief in respect
of the plaintiff’s complaint.
Q: What is a third-party claim under Rule 39?

A: A third-party claim (terceria) under RULE 39 is an AFFIDAVIT made by a third person who
claims to be entitled to the property in the custody of a sheriff by virtue of a writ of execution.
The one who files a third party claim is technically called third-party CLAIMANT. The one who
files a third party complaint is called third-party PLAINTIFF. I notice that even in SC decisions, the SC
commits that lapse: “The defendant filed a third party complaint” or sometimes “third party claimant.” But
actually, the correct term is third-party plaintiff.
Q: Now, under the law, where will you file your third-party claim?
A: You file it with the sheriff although legally, it is considered as it is filed in the court because the
sheriff is only an agent of the court. The sheriff does not have the power to rule on the legal issues.
Only the judge can. And it is the court which decides on the validity of a third party claim.
Q: If I am the third person and I want to vindicate my claim to that property, is a third party claim
procedure the only remedy I have under the law? Even if there’s a third party claim, auction sale may
proceed as long as there’s a bond. But I want the auction sale not to proceed and I want the property to
be returned in my favor, do I have any other remedy?
A: YES. Second paragraph: “Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person
from vindicating his claim to the property in a SEPARATE ACTION.” So, the remedy of third-party claim
is NOT exclusive. There is nothing in Section 16 which says that a third person is deprived of a right to
file a separate action.
Lakas Atenista 28
As the lawyer of Lolo, I have another option: instead of filing a third party claim, I would file a case
in court – the separate case would name Gina as the defendant. The cause of action is that the sheriff
mistakenly or erroneously levied the properties not owned by Karen because I am the real owner. Since
there was a mistaken levy, I am also asking the court to declare the levy as null and void, the auction
sale should not proceed.
The court might rule in my favor, so a separate action is allowed. Thus, a third-party claim is not
the only remedy available under the law for the third party claimant.
The second part also contains a new provision, “…or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming
damages in the same or a separate action against a third party claimant who files a frivolous or plainly spurious
claim.”
Remember that it is possible for a third-party claimant to be a dummy when it is a frivolous claim,
without basis or spurious, para tulungan lang niya ang defendant. There are people like that. Now,
under the new law, the prevailing party has the right to claim damages against the third-party claimant
for filing frivolous claims. He can claim the damages in the same action or in a separate action.
Now, many people do not really understand what is a third-party claim, even some lawyers:
Q: Suppose I am the lawyer of Lolo, bakit pa ako mag-file ng another case? Can I not just complain
to the court which rendered the decision? Can I not just file a motion asking the judge to order the
release of the property? Is a separate action not a violation of the rule against multiplicity of suits?
A: NO! You cannot bring out the issue to determine the ownership of the property.
INTERVENTION here is not proper. [Is this not a ground for intervention? GROUNDS FOR
INTERVENTION: (1) the intervenor has legal interest in the subject matter; (2) the intervenor has an
interest in the success of either parties; (3) the intervenor has an interest against both parties; and (4)
The intervenor is adversely affected by a distribution of a property in the custody of a court or an
officer thereof.]
The SC said YOU CANNOT INTERVENE because under Rule 19, an intervention can only be done
at any time before judgment. But here in Rule 39, we are now on the stage of execution – meron ng
judgment! Tapos na ang kaso…. [Gago!!] Intervention comes to late. The judge has already decided the
case. Now, bakit bigyan mo naman siya ng bagong trabaho? That’s another issue different from a case
already tried. So, a separate action is the proper remedy.
On the other hand, such doctrine should be reconciled with what the SC said in the case of
SY vs. DISCAYA
181 SCRA 378
HELD: If your property was erroneously levied under Rule 39, you can seek relief from
the very same court which rendered the judgment by simply filing a motion to question the
actuation of the sheriff, because execution is part of the process in that case and the sheriff is
an officer of the court and the court has the complete control over the actuation of the
sheriff. Therefore, why require the 3rd-party to file another action when he can seek relief in
the same case? Meaning, the third party can seek relief in the same case but only to
determine whether the sheriff acted rightly or wrongly, BUT not for the purpose of
determining the issue of ownership. Questions of ownership cannot be decided here. There
must be a separate action for the issue of ownership.
“A third person whose property was seized by a sheriff to answer for the obligation of
the judgment debtor may invoke the supervisory power of the court which authorized such
execution. Upon due application by the third person and after summary hearing, the court
may command that the property be released from the mistaken levy and restored to the
rightful owner or possessor. What said court can do in these instances, however, is limited
to a determination of whether the sheriff has acted rightly or wrongly in the performance of
his duties in the execution of judgment, more specifically, if he has indeed taken hold of
property not belonging to the judgment debtor. The court does not and cannot pass upon
Lakas Atenista 29
the question of title to the property, with any character of finality. It can treat of the matter
only insofar as may be necessary to decide if the sheriff has acted correctly or not.”
So, the court that renders the judgment cannot decide on the issue of ownership to a third person.
So your remedy is to file another case. But in the case of DISCAYA, the court which renders the
judgment can determine whether the sheriff has acted wrongly or correctly. And if it is wrong it can
order the property erroneously levied to be released without need of filing a separate action.
Q: So how do you reconcile the two doctrines?

A: If it is obvious that the sheriff committed a mistake – 100% mistake, i.e. he levied property
belonging to a third person who is not a defendant – to require a third person to go to court and file
another case will be tedious. Why can he not seek relief from the same court? Anyway if it is very
obvious that the sheriff acted wrongly, that is only incidental.
But when the issue is whether the property is owned by the defendant or the third person, and the
issue is controversial – who is the rightful owner – that cannot be decided summarily by the court
which rendered decision. It should be threshed out in an independent separate civil action. So that will
be the consideration.
The SC summarized all these remedies in the 1995 case of:
EVANGELISTA vs. PENSERGA

242 SCRA 702
HELD: The remedies of a third person whose property was seized by the sheriff to
answer for the obligation of a judgment obligor are the following:
1. Invoke the supervisory power of the court which authorized such execution (Sy
vs. Discaya);
2. Terceria - third party claim (Rule 39, Section 16); and
3. Any proper action to vindicate his claim to the property, meaning a separate civil
action. (second paragraph, Section 16, Rule 39)
So these are the three remedies of a third person whose property was seized by a sheriff to answer
for the obligation of another person.
Sec. 17. Penalty for selling without notice, or removing or defacing

notice. - An officer selling without the notice prescribed by section 15 of this
Rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount of five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured thereby, in addition to his actual
damages, both to be recovered by motion in the same action; and a person
willfully removing or defacing the notice posted, if done before the sale, or
before the satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfied before the sale,
shall be liable to pay five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured by
reason thereof, in addition to his actual damages, to be recovered by motion in
the same action. (19a)
Notices in the auction sale should be posted in three public places. For example, you go to the hall
of justice. You can see there a bulletin board, maraming nakalagay, half man niyan mga notice of public
aution ba. Now, do not go there and kunin ang mga papel doon. Baka multahan ka. You are not
supposed to remove or deface them.
Sec. 18. No sale if judgment and costs paid. - At any time before the sale
of property on execution, the judgment obligor may prevent the sale by paying
the amount required by the execution and the costs that have been incurred
therein. (20a)
Q: Can the debtor stop the auction sale? Is there a way for the debtor to prevent the sale of his
property?
Lakas Atenista 30
A: YES, if the obligor pay the amount required by the execution and the costs – bayaran mo lahat
ang utang mo, ‘di wala na. That’s what the law says. For example, the bank is foreclosing your
mortgage and sell the property at public auction. To stop the bank from proceeding with the sale, you
go to the bank and pay all your obligations. So, wala ng auction sale. But you have to pay all. “Kalahati
lang ang bayaran ko.” Ah, hindi puydi yan.
Sec. 19. How property sold on execution; who may direct manner and order of
sale. All sales of property under execution must be made at public auction, to
the highest bidder, to start at the exact time fixed in the notice. After
sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution, no more shall be
sold and any excess property or proceeds of the sale shall be promptly delivered
to the judgment obligor or his authorized representative, unless otherwise
directed by the judgment or order of the court. When the sale is of real
property, consisting of several known lots, they must be sold separately; or,
when a portion of such real property is claimed by a third person, he may
require it to be sold separately. When the sale is of personal property capable
of manual delivery, it must be sold within view of those attending the same and
in such parcels as are likely to bring the highest price. The judgment obligor,
if present at the sale, may direct the order in which property, real or
personal, shall be sold, when such property consists of several known lots or
parcels which can be sold to advantage separately. Neither the officer
conducting the execution sale, nor his deputies, can become a purchaser, nor be
interested directly or indirectly in any purchase at such sale. (21a)
Execution sale shall be done at public auction. The public is invited to bid kaya may public notice.
There are even publication for real property “TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.” How does it happen?
Normally, ang unang magbi-bid diyan is iyong creditor. And normally, his bid will be equal to the
judgment in his favor. For example, the judgment against B is P1 million which includes principal and
interest. Ang bid ko P1 million din. Okay lang, bahala ka kung sinong mas mataas diyan. That is how it
normally happens.
Q: Now, suppose there are many properties levied. What is the process?
A: You sell them one by one. Hindi pwede sabay-sabay. [Maysa-maysa laeng balong!] After sufficient
property has been sold and that is enough to satisfy the debt, then do not sell anymore. Do not sell
more than what is necessary to satisfy the judgment.
“When the sale is of real property, consisting of several known lots, they must be sold separately.”
Years ago, I witnessed an auction sale of subdivision here. Obviously, the owner of the subdivision
could not pay his account. So there was a public auction. Of course, the subdivision consists of more
than 100 lots — iba-iba ang location, may mapa eh. Now, you cannot say, “Alright, 150 lots. Pila man?”
Hindi puydi iyan. Isa-isa dapat – Lot #1, lot #2, lot #3… “kaya pa ba iyan? I may be interested to buy only
one lot.” So, lot #1, highest bidder, lot #2…until the proceeds are enough to satisfy the account. So hindi
pwedeng one time, garapalan iyan, kapal ng sheriff niyan. “Mga 170 lots…” ah hindi pwede iyan—isa-
isa dapat. That is how tedious it is.
The law says, the debtor, if he is present, he can intervene. He says, “Alright, unahin mo muna ito…”
because he may know of somebody who is willing to buy his property. So he can tell the sheriff, “If you
want to sell unahin mo muna ito because merong malaking bayad yan eh…” in order for his other properties
to be saved from the execution.
Now, the last paragraph, the last sentence says, “neither the officer conducting the execution sale, nor
his deputies, can become a purchaser, nor be interested directly or indirectly in any purchase at such sale”. So the
sheriff and his deputy cannot participate in the auction, these are prohibited interest.
I think there is also a prohibition in the Civil Code on this — on prohibited sales. The judge cannot
be interested in the sale of a property which is the subject matter of the litigation. The lawyer here
cannot purchase a property involving a case which he handled, to prevent conflict of interest.
Sec. 20. Refusal of purchaser to pay. If a purchaser refuses to pay the

amount bid by him for property struck off to him at a sale under execution, the
officer may again sell the property to the highest bidder and shall not be
Lakas Atenista 31
responsible for any loss occasioned thereby; but the court may order the
refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount of such loss, with costs,
and may punish him for contempt if he disobeys the order. The amount of such
payment shall be for the benefit of the person entitled to the proceeds of the
execution, unless the execution has been fully satisfied, in which event such
proceeds shall be for the benefit of the judgment obligor. The officer may
thereafter reject any subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to pay. (22a)
Auction sale: “We are now going to sell this piece of property. Alright, highest bidder—P10,000, next
P11,000, P12,000, P13,000.” Sabi noong isa, “Alright, P40,000!” Sheriff: “Any other bid?—wala na? Ok
wala na! then, it’s sold to you. Saan ang pera mo?” Bidder: “Wala akong pera, biro lang iyon.”
My golly! Pwede kang i-contempt niyan ba! [nagpapatawa, hindi naman kalbo!] You can be declared
in contempt of court. Hindi ito biruan. This is a proceeding. So we will repeat the procedure kasi wala
man. Kalokohan pala ito. Bwiset!
Q: May he bid again?

A: No more. The officer may thereafter reject any subsequent bid of such purchaser who refused to
pay. So do not fool around there when you make a bid. You must be serious and you must be ready to
pay for you bid.
Sec. 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. When the purchaser is the judgment
obligee, and no third-party claim has been filed, he need not pay the amount of
the bid if it does not exceed the amount of his judgment. If it does, he shall
pay only the excess. (23a)
Q: Can the judgment obligee – the creditor-plaintiff – participate in the auction sale?
A: YES, under Section 21. The sale is open to the public. As a matter of fact, in normal auction sale,
the first bidder is the plaintiff himself.
A: Suppose, he is the highest bidder. So the property is declared sold to him. Is he obliged to pay
his bid?
A: GENERAL RULE: NO. Why? You simply apply the law on compensation – I owe you money on
the purchase price for your property but you also owe me money based on the judgment. So quits na
tayo. Wala ng bayaran! Iyang property na ang pinaka-bayad mo.
EXCEPTION: Two (2) instances when obligee may be required to pay for his bid:
1.) When his bid is higher than the judgment. So he has to pay the cash for the excess or
EXAMPLE: The judgment in my favor is P1 million, my bid is P1.2 million and I’m the
highest bidder. So I have to pay you the balance, the P200,000 because that is more than
the judgment in my favor.
2.) when the property which is to be sold is a subject of a third party claim because it is really
controversial whether the property is really owned by the judgment debtor.
So, if there is a 3rd party claim, he has to pay because it is controversial - as to who
really is the owner of the property. Of course, iyong pera naka-deposit iyan. Your money
will be returned to you if it turns out the claim is frivolous. If the third party claim turns
out to be valid, it will be given to the real owner because the property that you bought
turned out to be owned by somebody who is not your debtor.
Sec. 22. Adjournment of sale. By written consent of the judgment obligor and
obligee, or their duly authorized representatives, the officer may adjourn the
sale to any date and time agreed upon by them. Without such agreement, he may
adjourn the sale from day to day if it becomes necessary to do so for lack of
time to complete the sale on the day fixed in the notice or the day to which it
was adjourned. (24a)
Lakas Atenista 32
Suppose the auction sale was scheduled today. Hindi natapos because there are many properties to
be sold like 200 lots. Then we can continue tomorrow.
Suppose we will continue next week. Then both parties must agree by written consent of the
judgment obligor and obligee if we will postpone it to another date na mas malayo.
Q: Do you know why these things are very important?

A: Because you already advertised that it will be held on this day. So any change on the date has
to be strictly complied with. That’s the reason behind these.
Q: Now, what properties can be sold at public auction?

A: It’s either personal property or real property. We are sure about that.
TWO TYPES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY:

1.) one capable of manual delivery; and
2.) one not capable of manual delivery – iyong mga intangibles ba!
Q: What is the procedure for the sale of personal property capable of manual delivery and one not
capable of manual delivery?
A: You have Section 23 and Section 24.
Q: When it comes to real property, what is the procedure?

A: The procedure is Section 25.
So let’s go over there, conveyance to purchaser of personal property capable of manual delivery.
Like a car and appliance or any other tangible object.
Sec. 23. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property capable of manual

delivery. When the purchaser of any personal property, capable of manual
delivery, pays the purchase price, the officer making the sale must deliver the
property to the purchaser and, if desired, execute and deliver to him a
certificate of sale. The sale conveys to the purchaser all the rights which the
judgment obligor had in such property as of the date of the levy on execution or
preliminary attachment. (25a)
Sec. 24. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property not capable of manual

delivery. When the purchaser of any personal property, not capable of manual
delivery, pays the purchase price, the officer making the sale must execute and
deliver to the purchaser a certificate of sale. Such certificate conveys to the
purchaser all the rights which the judgment obligor had in such property as of
the date of the levy on execution or preliminary attachment. (26a)
Q: What is the procedure for the sale of property capable of manual delivery?
A: When the property is CAPABLE OF MANUAL DELIVERY, and you are the highest bidder, I
will deliver the car to you, and execute and deliver to you a certificate of sale. The certificate of sale
should be signed by the sheriff to prove that you are the highest bidder. And with that certificate of
sale, you can register that with the LTO. Automatically, the LTO will transfer the ownership and the
registration of the car in your name.
Q: What is the procedure for the sale of property NOT CAPABLE OF MANUAL DELIVERY? Mga
intangible assets?
A: There is nothing to physically give you. But according to Section 24, the officer making the same
must execute and deliver to the purchaser a certificate and that is actually tantamount to delivery
already.
Q: When you buy a personal property at an auction sale and the sheriff executes a certificate of sale
in your favor, do you become the owner of the property?
A: Both sections say, “the sale conveys to the purchaser all the rights which the judgment obligor have in
such property as of the date of the levy on execution.” At the sale, you acquire all the rights which the
obligor had in such property. You become the owner because you acquire the judgment obligor’s right
of ownership over such property.
Lakas Atenista 33
BUT suppose the obligor holding the property is not the owner of the property although he has
some right over the property and his rights where sold, then you only acquire whatever rights he has
over the property. You do not acquire ownership. A spring cannot rise higher than its source.
EXAMPLE: You are the defendant but you enjoy rights over the property as usufructuary – you are
the beneficial owner of the property but not the naked owner. And your rights as usufructuary were
levied. I am the purchaser. Can I acquire naked ownership? Of course NOT. I only acquire beneficial
ownership. I only acquire whatever right the debtor has over the property.
The SC made a commentary on that issue on the nature of the sheriff’s sale and one of which is the
case of
LEYSON vs. TAÑADA
109 SCRA 66 [1981]
HELD: “At a sheriff’s sale they do not sell the land advertised to sell, although that is a
common acceptation, but they simply sell what interest in that land the judgment debtor
has; and if you buy his interest, and it afterwards develops that he has none, you are still
liable on your bid, because you have offered so much for his interest in open market, and it
is for you to determine before you bid what is his interest in the property.”
So, it is for you to determine what his interest is before you bid. That is why you look at the sheriff’s
notice of sale, meron mang warning ba: “Notice to prospective bidders. You are advised to find out whatever
interest the debtor has.”
For EXAMPLE: You buy the land and it turns out na hindi pala may-ari iyong taong iyon, iba ang
rights niya. Then you are to uphold his rights, “Ah, I will hold the sheriff liable!” No you cannot. There is
no warranty here on ownership.
So, do not confuse this with private sale of property—warranty against eviction—wala iyan sa
sheriff’s sale. The sheriff does not warrant the ownership of the property. The law only warrants the
guarantee that you will acquire whatever interest he has. And if his interest is less than what you
expect, pasensha ka. This is a case of CAVEAT EMPTOR – let the buyer beware. That is the thing you
have to remember about action sale.
Sec. 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof given to purchaser

and filed with registry of deeds. Upon a sale of real property, the officer must
give to the purchaser a certificate of sale containing:
(a) A particular description of the real property sold;
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or parcel;
(c) The whole price paid by him;
(d) A statement that the right of redemption expires one (1) year from the
date of the registration of the certificate of sale.
Such certificate must be registered in the registry of deeds of the place
where the property is situated. (27a)
If the property sold at public auction is a piece of land (real property), the sheriff will execute in
your favor what is known as the sheriff’s CERTIFICATE OF SALE. Ano’ng nakalagay diyan? It is
practically what a normal deed of sale provides – the description of the land, the property sold, the
whole price paid, the lot if there are different parcels, how much per parcel.
The important paragraph is [d]: “A statement that the right of redemption expires one (1) year from the
date of the registration of the certificate of sale”.
Q: What is the main difference between a sale of personal property under Section 23 and sale of
real property under Section 25?
A: When the property sold at public auction is real property, the debtor has one (1) year to redeem
the property. That’s what you call the RIGHT OF REDEMPTION from the purchaser. But if the
property sold at public auction is personal property, like cars or appliances, there is no right of
redemption.
Lakas Atenista 34
There is no right of redemption in personal property. That is only recognized in real property. So if
your (personal) property is sold at public auction, and then there is a highest bidder, you cannot say,
“Anyway, pwede ko namang bawiin iyon.” NO, wala iyang bawi, kanya na yan. But if the property sold at
public auction is real property, that is not kissing your land goodbye. You have one year to redeem it.
That is your last chance.
Q: Summary: If you are the highest bidder, when do you acquire ownership of the property sold in a
auction sale?
A: It DEPENDS whether the property sold is personal or real:
a.) If it is PERSONAL PROPERTY, the title is transferred after payment of the purchase price
and delivery upon the purchaser. Delivery is either physical or symbolic; (Sections 23 & 24)
b.) If it is REAL PROPERTY, the title is transferred, not after the auction sale, but after
expiration of the right to redeem. (Section 25)
There is no right of redemption under personal property. It can only be exercised in real property.
Now, take note that the period to redeem is ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE
REGISTRATION of the certificate of sale in the office of the registrar of deeds. It is NOT from the date
of the auction sale.
Under the old law, malabo eh: “from the date of sale.” Anong sale? Date of the auction sale or date of
the issuance of certificate of sale? According to the SC, the date of the registration. That is the start of
the counting. Kaya nga if there is a sale in your favor, pag i-delay mo ang registration, ikaw ang
kawawa because the longer you delay it, the redemption period is being stretched. Instead of cutting
after one year, period of redemption has not been cut off kaya there must be a registration.
Under the present rule, the right of redemption expires after one (1) year from the date of the
registration of the certificate of sale. Under the old law, it expires after twelve (12) months.
Q: Is the ‘one year’ under the present rule and the ‘12 months’ under the old rules the same?
A: NO, and we know that 12 months is 360 days. One month is 30 days times 12 is 360 days. But
one year is 365 days. So they are not the same.
That’s why before, the redemption period for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage is one year. And
the redemption in execution under Rule 39 is 12 months. So there is a difference. But NOW, pareho na.
That’s why the old case of STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE when the SC made the distinction
between the one year period for mortgage and the 12 months period under Rule 39 is already
MEANINGLESS because the one year period. NOW is uniform.
Q: Can you attack the validity of an auction sale?

A: GENERAL RULE: NO, you cannot attack the auction sale on the presumption that every fair
sale is final. There is a presumption of regular performance of duty by the sheriff.
EXCEPTION: When an execution may be set aside:
1.) When it is shown from the nature of the irregularity or from intrinsic facts injury resulted
therefrom. (Navarro vs. Navarro, 76 Phil. 122) Meaning, there were serious irregularities
committed by the officer in conducting the sale like no publication, no notice, no prior levy,
etc.;
2.) When the price obtained at the execution sale is shockingly inadequate and it is shown that
a better price can be obtained at a resale. (Barrozo vs. Macadaeg, 83 Phil. 378) Meaning, the
highest bid is shockingly inadequate.
Lakas Atenista 35
EXAMPLE: I owed you for P100,000 – P100,000 ang judgment! And what is levied is a brand new
Mercedes Benz. So sobra na yon na pambayad sa utang. But the highest bid is P30,000. Just imagine the
highest bid is 30,000, tapos meron pang deficiency judgment for P70,000 – of course, there is something
wrong here. So, that is an exception, no! That is, when the price obtained at the execution sale is
SHOCKINGLY INADEQUATE to the senses and it is shown that a better price can be obtained.
‘Shocking to the senses’ means hindi naman yung the difference is very slight.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The rule that you can question the validity of the auction sale if
the price obtained is shockingly inadequate applies ONLY when the property sold is PERSONAL
property. The exception does not apply when the property sold is real property because if the property
sold is a personal property, there is no right of redemption. But if the property sold is real property,
you cannot complain because, anyway, you have one year to pay and the redemption price is lower. So,
you are not really prejudiced. So why are you complaining? That’s what the SC said in the case of
RAMOS vs. PABLO

146 SCRA 5 [1986]
HELD: “A reading of plaintiffs' (petitioners') complaint shows that inadequacy of price

was raised as one of the issues. Assuming that the price was shockingly low, the same
cannot vitiate the auction sale for redemption would be comparatively easier.”
That is because the property sold in RAMOS is real property. Pero kung personal property, I think
it is really unfair. You lose the property forever with a very small amount.
Sec. 26. Certificate of sale where property claimed by third person. When a
property sold by virtue of a writ of execution has been claimed by a third
person, the certificate of sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant to sections
23, 24 and 25 of this Rule shall make express mention of the existence of such
third-party claim. (28a)
If the property sold at public auction is a subject of a third party claim under Section 16, the
certificate of sale to the property is issued subject to the outcome of the third party claim by a stranger.
Sec. 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. Real property sold as
provided in the last preceding section, or any part thereof sold separately, may
be redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the following persons:
(a) The judgment obligor, or his successor in interest in the whole or any
part of the property;
(b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or
mortgage on the property sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien
under which the property was sold. Such redeeming creditor is termed a
redemptioner. (29a)
That is an important section.
Q: Who are entitled to redeem real property?

A: There are two (2):
1.) The judgment obligor or his successor-in-interest; and
2.) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property
sold, subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold. He is know as the
REDEMPTIONER.
JUDGMENT OBLIGOR OR HIS SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST
Judgment obligor is clear – the defendant who lost the case – the defendant whose property was
levied. Or, his successor-in-interest. For EXAMPLE: During the one year period to redeem, the
Lakas Atenista 36
judgment debtor died. So it could be his heirs, his children, his spouse who could exercise the right to
redeem because they step into his shoes. Also, successor-in-interest would also refer to a person to
whom the obligor assigned or transferred his right to redeem.
Q: Can the defendant sell, aside from transferring, his right to another person?
A: YES, because the right to redeem is property by itself. My right to redeem is also property such
as an interest to the real property which can be the subject matter of a sale.
EXAMPLE: “Alright, may property ako worth P5 million. Na-sheriff for P2 million. Wala na, hindi
ko na kaya. Ibenta ko sa iyo for P3 million. Give me P1 million cash at ikaw na ang mag redeem sa
purchaser.” Ginansiya ka pa rin di ba? P5 million gud iyon. So I can sell, and once I sell the right to
redeem to you, you are classified as successor-in-interest for the judgment obligor.
REDEMPTIONER
Q: Define redemptioner.
A: A redemptioner is a creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage on
the property sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold.
ILLUSTRATION: Suppose there is a title owned by X and he has four (4) creditors. Let’s say the
property is worth P10 million and he owes A for P2 million. So A levied the property. Now there’s
another judgment in favor of B and there is no other property, ito na lang. So ang ginawa ni B,
tinatakan niya – another P2 million.
Under the Law on Land Titles and Deeds, B has inferior rights. In other words, the right of A is
superior to the right of B. A has no obligation to respect the right of B but B is obliged to respect the
right of A. And Assuming that there is a third creditor – C – for another P2 million. Thus, subsequent
holder din si C. If D is also a creditor, apat na sila.
Of course, the right of A is superior. He levies the property, may one year to redeem. Sabi ni X,
“Wala na akong property, so ano pang pakialam ko kay B?” Suppose X will not redeem, so A becomes the
owner after one year. What happens to B, C and D? Bura lahat kayo because you are underneath. A has
no obligation to respect your liens.
In other words, A acquires the entire property for only P2M because hindi na interesado si X.
Shempre si B interesado. So B will pay A within the redemption period para matanggal si A. Yung
utang ni X na P2M binayaran niya kay A. So P4 million na ang hawak ni B. And B will now be the
number one. B will now acquire the property. Pero sabi ni C, “Hindi pwede iyan, lugi ako!” Kasi pagna-
acquire na ni B ang property, patay na naman si C and D. Sabi ni C, “Bababuyin, ah este… Babayaran kita
(B)! O ayan ang P4 million. Saksak mo sa baga mo!” D can do the same thing to C.
Iyan ang tinatawag na redemptioners – people who have lien subsequent because that is your only
way to protect your lien over the property. Anyway, even if D will pay everybody, hindi pa rin lugi
because the property is worth P10 million. But he spent P8 million because he had to buy or redeem it
from people who are ahead of him. That is the illustration of redemptioners, they have a personality or
a right to redeem the property from whoever is ahead of him in order to protect his lien over the
property because if he will not redeem, the quickest one will acquire the property free from any lien or
encumbrance. Eh, kung wala na yung property? Patay na ako. What property will I get to satisfy the
account wala na akong property, isa nalang. That is the rule on redemption. That is what Section 27 is
all about.
Take note that redemptioners cannot redeem if the judgment debtor redeems.
(For Review Class) Now, let us discuss the case of PALICTE vs. REMOLITE, infa. This case is
instructive on the issue of right of redemption under Rule 39 in relation to special proceedings – the
estate of deceased person. This is what happened:
Lakas Atenista 37
PALICTE vs. REMOLETE

154 SCRA 132 [1987]
FACTS: A man lost a case and his properties were levied. So let’s say his properties
were levied for P1 million. But during the 1-year period of redemption, he died. And he is
survived by 5 children. And there is an administrator appointed by the court to administer
the properties of the deceased. During the one period to redeem, one of five children, siguro
mayaman, redeemed the properties of their father.
Take note that only one of the heirs redeemed the entire property from the judgment
creditor- obligee. And one of the issues raised is whether one heir alone has the personality
to redeem from the creditor the property of the estate when there is an administrator.
Remember, ha – the legal representative under the law, is the administrator.
ISSUE #1: So, who has the right to redeem? The heir or the administrator?
HELD: The HEIR has the right to redeem. “At the moment of the decedent’s death, the
heirs start to own the property, subject to the decedent’s liabilities. In fact, they may dispose
of the same even while the property is under administration. If the heirs may dispose of
their shares in the decedent’s property even while it is under administration with more
reason should the heirs be allowed to redeem redeemable properties despite the presence of
an administrator.”
ISSUE #2: Must the one redeeming prove that the other co-heirs, the administrator and
the court expressly agreed to the redemption? Is it necessary for him to get their consent?
HELD: “There is NO NEED for such prior approval. While it may have been desirable, it
is not indispensable. There is likewise nothing in the records to indicate that the redemption
was not beneficial to the estate.” Anyway, the estate was benefited. The property was
returned to the estate rather than acquired by the creditors.
ISSUE #3: How can one specific heir redeem alone when his interest in the estate is not
fixed and determinate pending the order of distribution by the court? He is just a 1/5 owner
and then he is redeeming everything, how can that be done?
HELD: “It may be true that the interest of a specific heir is not yet fixed and determinate
pending the order of distribution BUT, nonetheless, the heir’s interest in the preservation of
the estate and the recovery of its properties is greater than anybody else’s, definitely more
than the administrator’s who merely holds it for the creditors, the heirs, and the legatees.”
ISSUE #4: Can we not consider the administrator as the judgment-debtor himself and
the only one successor-in-interest?
HELD: NO. “The estate of the deceased is the judgment-debtor and the heirs who will
eventually acquire that estate should not be prohibited from doing their share in its
preservation.”
ISSUE #5: So, sabi ng redeeming heir, “Okey, so now let the property be registered in my
name because pera ko man ang ginamit. I spent my money in paying the property including the
shares of my brothers and sisters who have no money.” Is the redeeming heir correct?
HELD: NO. “The motion to transfer the titles of the properties to the name of the
redeeming heir cannot prosper at this time. Otherwise, to allow such transfer of title would
amount to a distribution of the estate.” That is tantamount to premature distribution of the
estate. You cannot distribute the estate in favor of one heir immediately.
So, what is the solution? “The other heirs are, therefore, given a six-month period to join
as co-redemptioners in the redemption made by the petitioner before the motion to transfer
titles to the latter’s name may be granted.”
So meaning, if the other heirs are given 6 months, hindi nyo mabayaran, pwede na yan, kasi pera
man niya ang ginamit.
Lakas Atenista 38
Sec. 28. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on, successive redemptions;
notice to be given and filed. The judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem
the property from the purchaser, at any time within one (1) year from the date
of the registration of the certificate of sale, by paying the purchaser the
amount of his purchase, with one per centum per month interest thereon in
addition, up to the time of redemption, together with the amount of any
assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase,
and interest on such last named amount at the same rate; and if the purchaser be
also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the
judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of such other lien, with
interest.
Property so redeemed may again be redeemed within sixty (60) days after the
last redemption upon payment of the sum paid on the last redemption, with two
per centum thereon in addition, and the amount of any assessments or taxes which
the last redemptioner may have paid thereon after redemption by him, with
interest on such last-named amount, and in addition, the amount of any liens
held by said last redemptioner prior to his own, with interest. The property may
be again, and as often as a redemptioner is so disposed, redeemed from any
previous redemptioner within sixty (60) days after the last redemption, on
paying the sum paid on the last previous redemption, with two per centum thereon
in addition, and the amounts of any assessments or taxes which the last previous
redemptioner paid after the redemption thereon, with interest thereon, and the
amount of any liens held by the last redemptioner prior to his own, with
interest.
Written notice of any redemption must be given to the officer who made the
sale and a duplicate filed with the registry of deeds of the place, and if any
assessments or taxes are paid by the redemptioner or if he has or acquires any
lien other than that upon which the redemption was made, notice thereof must in
like manner be given to the officer and filed with the registry of deeds; if
such notice be not filed, the property may be redeemed without paying such
assessments, taxes, or liens. (30a)
ILLUSTRATION: Brown Sugar is a judgment obligor. She has four creditors (A, B, C, and D) and all
of them obtained judgment against her and all of them levied on the same property. Brown Sugar is
given one year from the registration of the sale to redeem it from A. Now, suppose SUGAR cannot
redeem, B will be the one to redeem because the first redemptioner and the judgment obligor have one
year to redeem from the date of registration. That is what Section 28 says “the judgment obligor, or
redemptioner.” Now, C is given 60 days to redeem. After that, wala ng right. Suppose C was able to
redeem, D has another 60 days to redeem from C.
Q: So what is the period of redemption?

A: There are two periods of redemption: The judgment obligor and first redemptioner are given
ONE YEAR from the date of registration of the certificate of sale to redeem and after that all
subsequent redemptioners are given 60 days.
So the second redemptioner can redeem it within 60 days. So, within 60 days, the 3rd redemptioner
can redeem it. Pasa yan, in order that the redemptioner can protect their lien over the property. So, the
redemption period is ONE YEAR and 60 DAYS respectively.
Q: Now, suppose Brown Sugar or B would like to redeem the property from A. How much will the
property be redeemed?
A: Under Section 28, the purchase or the bid price for the property PLUS one percent per month
interest, and reimbursement for taxes of the property with interest also. But definitely, the redemption
price = the bid price + 1% interest month. So, if you will redeem after one year, the bid price and 12% of
the bid price.
ILLUSTRATION: So kung P1 million ang bid price plus + P120,000 (1%/month) = P1.12 million
Now there are two interesting cases here which I want you to remember. The conflicting ruling in
PNB vs. CA (140 SCRA 360) and the case of SY vs. CA (172 SCRA 125). The two cases involved a
foreclosure of mortgage not execution but the Rules of Court applies. Under the extra-judicial
foreclosure of mortgage Act 3135, the provision of the Rules of Court are also applicable to redemption
Lakas Atenista 39
in a foreclosure sale. So the provision in Section 28 also applies to the redemption during an
extrajudicial foreclosure of property.
PNB vs. COURT OFAPPEALS

140 SCRA 360 [1985]
FACTS: Suppose I will borrow money from the bank and stipulate an interest at 24% per
annum. During the auction sale, it was sold to the bank. Within one year, you approach me,
gusto mo na i-redeem. Magkano ang bid price—P2M plus interest of 2% per month for the
next seven or eight months. Sabihin ng debtor, “No, 1% lang. Di ba nakalagay sa law 1%
lang.” Pero ang usapan natin is 3% monthly.
ISSUE: So which prevails - the 1% per month under the Rules of Court or the 2% per
month as stipulated in the promissory note?
HELD: The 1% of the Rules of Court prevails. Why? The rights of the debtor or creditor,
the bank for example, under the promissory note, or even under the mortgage law, is only
good up to the auction sale. From the moment the auction sale is finished and there was
already a bid, we are now talking of the one year period to redeem. So the rate in the
promissory note is no longer applicable.
The case of PNB was somehow modified by the SC in the subsequent case of Sy vs. CA (172 SCRA
125) where the facts are identical.
SY vs. COURT OF APPEALS
172 SCRA 125 [1989]
FACTS: They borrowed money from the bank at 2% a month and they failed to pay the
loan. Thus, there was a foreclosure of mortgage then there was an execution of sale.
ISSUE: Within the one year period of redemption, pila man ang interest? The debtor
will say 1% but according to the bank, it is 2% as stipulated. Which will prevail?
HELD: The 3% a month stipulated under the mortgage contract prevails. Why? Because
of a special law – Section 78 of the General Banking Act R.A. 337. Between Section 28 of
Rule 39 and Section 78 of the General Banking Act, the latter prevails because it is a special
law. It applies to banks.
“The General Banking Act partakes of the nature of an amendment to the mortgage law
in so far as the redemption price is concerned. When the mortgagee or the creditor is a bank
or banking credit institution, Section 6 of the mortgage law in relation to Section 28 of Rule
39 of the Rules of Court is inconsistent with Section 78 of the General Banking Act.” So the
bank rate prevails.
Paano nangyari ito? I have only one single explanation. Hindi nakita ng mga abogado ng PNB ang
provision na iyon. They did not research very well. They failed to cite the provision of the General
Banking Act which authorizes the bank to continue charging the higher rate even during the
redemption period. Ginamit ng SC ang general rule eh. So mas magaling ang lawyer nung bank in the
second case because they were able to detect an exception under the general rule.
You know, if you are a lawyer of a bank, you must know all the laws regarding banks. Just the
same, if you are a labor lawyer, you master all the labor laws. But if you are a bar candidate, you
master all laws! Yaaaann!
Sec. 29. Effect of redemption by judgment obligor, and a certificate to be

delivered and recorded thereupon; to whom payments on redemption made. If the
judgment obligor redeems, he must make the same payments as are required to
effect a redemption by a redemptioner, whereupon, no further redemption shall be
allowed and he is restored to his estate. The person to whom the redemption
payment is made must execute and deliver to him a certificate of redemption
Lakas Atenista 40
acknowledged before a notary public or other officer authorized to take

acknowledgments of conveyances of real property. Such certificate must be filed
and recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is
situated, and the registrar of deeds must note the record thereof on the margin
of the record of the certificate of sale. The payments mentioned in this and the
last preceding sections may be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him
to the officer who made the sale. (31a)
Q: Suppose Tikla redeems the property from Joshua. If the sheriff will execute in favor of Tikla a
certificate of redemption, to whom should Tikla pay?
A: The law says she can pay directly to the purchaser, the redemptioner or the person who made
the sale.
Sec. 30. Proof required of redemptioner. A redemptioner must produce to the

officer, or person from whom he seeks to redeem, and serve with his notice to
the officer a copy of the judgment or final order under which he claims the
right to redeem, certified by the clerk of the court wherein the judgment or
final order is entered; or, if he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien, a
memorandum of the record thereof, certified by the registrar of deeds; or an
original or certified copy of any assignment necessary to establish his claim;
and an affidavit executed by him or his agent, showing the amount then actually
due on the lien. (32a)
When the ORIGINAL OWNER wants to redeem the property from B, there is NO NEED for him to
prove his right as a judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has the automatic right to redeem.
But when it is B, C or D (REDEMPTIONERS) who wants to redeem, they MUST PROVE to the
sheriff that they are qualified to redeem. They must prove their status because not every person in the
world has the right to redeem. The right to redeem is only given to the debtor, the successor-in-interest
or the redemptioner. Thus, you must prove your personality to effect redemption.
Sec. 31. Manner of using premises pending redemption; waste restrained.

Until the expiration of the time allowed for redemption, the court may, as in
other proper cases, restrain the commission of waste on the property by
injunction, on the application of the purchaser or the judgment obligee, with or
without notice; but it is not waste for a person in possession of the property
at the time of the sale, or entitled to possession afterwards, during the period
allowed for redemption, to continue to use it in the same manner in which it was
previously used; or to use it in the ordinary course of husbandry; or to make
the necessary repairs to buildings thereon while he occupies the property. (33a)
PROBLEM: Suppose X is the debtor, A is the purchaser because the highest bidder could be any
person. During the 1-year period to redeem, who is in possessor of the property? The purchaser or the
debtor?
A: The DEBTOR. During the one-year period, iyo pa rin yan. The buyer or the purchaser cannot
take over during the institution. He has to wait for the one-year period to expire before he can take
over. Therefore, X continues to occupy the property. He continues to use it the same manner it was
previously used. Use it in the ordinary course of husbandry, to make the necessary repairs to buildings
thereon while he occupies the property.
Q: Suppose 8 months has passed. Sabi ni X, “Mukhang wala na akong pag-asa. Hindi ko na ito
mababayaran. Sige, wasakin ko na lang ang property. Sirain ko na lang. I will make a waste of the land. I will cut
all the coconut trees. I will destroy all the improvements. Para pag-take-over mo, wala na. Bwahahaha!” What is
the remedy of A?
A: He can ask the court to issue a writ of injunction according to Section 31 – an injunction to
restrain the commission of waste on the property. So, you can also stop him by injunction.
Sec. 32. Rents, earnings and income of property pending redemption. The
purchaser or a redemptioner shall not be entitled to receive the rents, earnings
and income of the property sold on execution, or the value of the use and
occupation thereof when such property is in the possession of a tenant. All
rents, earnings and income derived from the property pending redemption shall
Lakas Atenista 41
belong to the judgment obligor until the expiration of his period of redemption.
(34a)
Section 32 is the continuation of Section 31.
Q: My property was sold on execution in your favor. But my property earns income. May mga
tenants diyan na nagbabayad ng renta. During the one-year period, who will get the rentals? The
purchaser or the debtor?
A: The DEBTOR. He continues to receive all the earnings. For defensive purposes, he is still the
owner. Do not say that, “Ako ang highest bidder, akin ang income!” (Gunggong!) You wait for the one-year
redemption period to expire to get the income.
Under the OLD rules, the 1964 Rules, during the one-year period to redeem, the debtor/defendant
continues to get the income of the property but when the creditor may opt: “Your Honor, akin ang
income ha?” That’s allowed by the old law. But everything is deductible also form the redemption price.
NGAYON wala na yan. 100% the debtor is the one enjoying the income over the property. That is a
major amendment introduced by the 1997 Rules.
Q: Now, what happens if after the lapse of one year there is no redemption? What is the next step?
A: That is Section 33:
Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period;

by whom executed or given. If no redemption be made within one (1) year from the
date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled
to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redeemed whenever
sixty (60) days have elapsed and no other redemption has been made, and notice
thereof given, and the time for redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is
entitled to the conveyance and possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor
shall have the entire period of one (1) year from the date of the registration
of the sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the officer
making the sale or by his successor in office, and in the latter case shall have
the same validity as though the officer making the sale had continued in office
and executed it.
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or
redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest
and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the levy.
The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last
redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the
property adversely to the judgment obligor. (35a)
If the period to redeem expires, no more right of redemption. What will happen? The sheriff now
will now execute in favor of the highest bidder or purchaser what is known as the final deed of sale or
DEED OF CONVEYANCE. Remember that there are two documents here which the sheriff executes in
case of real property.
Q: What are they (two documents which the sheriff executes in case of real property)?
A: The following:
1.) CERTIFICATE OF SALE. After the auction sale, he will execute in your favor the certificate
of sale under Section 25, by the time you register that, you start counting the one year.
2.) DEED OF CONVEYANCE. If after one year there is no redemption, a deed of conveyance is
executed. (Section 33)
Q: Which of the two documents transfers the ownership to the purchaser?

A: Only the DEED OF CONVEYANCE transfers title to the property.
The certificate of sale one year ago does not transfer the ownership of the land to the purchaser. It is
only a memorial that you are the highest bidder, that you paid so much and that you are the purchaser
but there is no transfer of ownership. Only the final deed of sale in Section 33 conveys title to property.
So do not confuse the sheriff’s certificate of sale under Section 25 with the final deed of sale under
Lakas Atenista 42
Section 33. Although in an extra-judicial foreclosure, there is no need of deed of sale. Only affidavit of
consolidation is needed under the mortgage law.
Q: How can the sheriff give it to you? Suppose the debtor refuse to vacate, is there a need to file
another action of unlawful detainer or forcible entry?
A: There is no more need of filing another action to eject the former owner. The procedure is, the
purchaser can ask the court to issue a WRIT OF POSSESSION under the Property Registration Decree
to take over the property.
Now, another interesting case about this stage in relation to property exempted from execution, is
the case of
GOMEZ vs. GEALONE
203 SCRA 474 [1991]
FACTS: The property of the defendant was levied and sold in a public auction to the
highest bidder. One year after, there was no redemption. Then after the period has expired,
here comes the defendant questioning the auction sale because the property was exempt
from execution and the property really turned out to be exempt from execution.
ISSUE: Is there a deadline for a judgment debtor to claim exemption from execution of
his property? Can the debtor still raise the issue that the property is exempt from execution
after the expiration of the redemption period.
HELD: The rules do not expressly mention up to what point “although the rules of court
does not prescribe the period within which to claim the exemption, the rule is, nevertheless,
well-settled that the right of exemption must be claimed by the debtor himself at the time of
the levy or within a reasonable time thereafter.” What is “reasonable time”?
“’REASONABLE TIME,’ for purposes of the law on exemption, does not mean a time
after the expiration of the one-year period for judgment debtors to redeem the property sold
on execution, otherwise it would render nugatory final bills of sale on execution and defeat
the very purpose of execution - to put an end to litigation.”
“We now rule that claims for exemption from execution of properties under Section 13
must be presented before its sale on execution by the sheriff.”
Meaning, you raise the issue of exemption at the time of the levy but not later that the auction sale.
There is a deadline because if you claim exemption after that, masyadong ng atrasado—too late na ba.
Thus, the claim for exemption must be raised. That’s the ruling in the case of GOMEZ vs. GEALONE.
Sec. 34. Recovery of price if sale not effective; revival of judgment. If

the purchaser of real property sold on execution, or his successor in interest,
fails to recover the possession thereof, or is evicted therefrom, in consequence
of irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale, or because the
judgment has been reversed or set aside, or because the property sold was exempt
from execution, or because a third person has vindicated his claim to the
property, he may on motion in the same action or in a separate action recover
from the judgment obligee the price paid, with interest, or so much thereof as
has not been delivered to the judgment obligor; or he may, on motion, have the
original judgment revived in his name for the whole price with interest, or so
much thereof as has been delivered to the judgment obligor. The judgment so
revived shall have the same force and effect as an original judgment would have
as of the date of the revival and no more. (36a)
Q: Suppose A is the highest bidder. There is a third-party claim which turned out to be valid. So the
property is removed from A. So, paano naman si A? Nakabayad gud siya diyan. Paano niya babawiin
ang kuwarta niya?
A: A’s options under Section 34:
1.) Recover the money from obligee (A here is not the judgment obligee); or
2.) Have the judgment revived in your name and you look for other properties of the obligor to
execute because:
a.) He lost possession of the property;
Lakas Atenista 43
b.) He was evicted;

c.) There was irregularity of the proceedings;
d.) The judgment has been reversed or set aside on appeal;
e.) The property sold was exempt from execution; or,
f.) A third person has validity of his claim of the property.
That’s one way of property being removed from the purchaser. Your remedy is to recover the
money from the obligee ASSUMING that the obligee is different from the purchase. Or have the
judgment revived in your name – hahabol ka na lang sa ibang properties ng debtor. That’s the
procedure alright.
Sec. 35. Right to contribution or reimbursement. When property liable to an

execution against several persons is sold thereon, and more than a due
proportion of the judgment is satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the
property of one of them, or one of them pays, without a sale, more than his
proportion, he may compel a contribution from the others; and when a judgment is
upon an obligation of one of them, as security for another, and the surety pays
the amount, or any part thereof, either by sale of his property or before sale,
he may compel repayment from the principal. (37a)
Q: The judgment is against A, B, and C, solidary debtors. A paid everything. What is the right of A?
A: A has the right to seek reimbursement from B and C.
Or if the surety was made to pay the loan, he can claim reimbursement from the principal debtor.
That’s under the Law on Obligations and Contracts—right to reimbursement.
REMEDIES IN AID OF EXECUTION
Another important portion of the rule to remember are the so-called provisions of the rules in aid of
execution – remedies “in aid of execution” – because execution is a difficult process. The purpose of the
remedies in aid of execution is to help the obligee realize the fruits of the judgment.
It is sometimes very hard to grasp out properties of the obligor especially if he knows how to hide
them by conveying remedies to assist him in locating the properties of the defendant and these
remedies in aid of execution are found in Section 36 to Section 43. And the most famous are those
found in Sections 36 and 37:
Sec. 36. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment unsatisfied. When the
return of a writ of execution issued against property of a judgment obligor, or
any one of several obligors in the same judgment, shows that the judgment
remains unsatisfied, in whole or in part, the judgment obligee, at any time
after such return is made, shall be entitled to an order from the court which
rendered the said judgment, requiring such judgment obligor to appear and be
examined concerning his property and income before such court or before a
commissioner appointed by it, at a specified time and place; and proceedings may
thereupon be had for the application of the property and income of the judgment
obligor towards the satisfaction of the judgment. But no judgment obligor shall
be so required to appear before a court or commissioner outside the province or
city in which such obligor resides or is found. (38a)
Sec. 37. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor. When the return of a

writ of execution against the property of a judgment obligor shows that the
judgment remains unsatisfied, in whole or in part, and upon proof to the
satisfaction of the court which issued the writ, that a person, corporation, or
other juridical entity has property of such judgment obligor or is indebted to
him, the court may, by an order, require such person, corporation, or other
juridical entity, or any officer or member thereof, to appear before the court
or a commissioner appointed by it, at a time and place within the province or
city where such debtor resides or is found, and be examined concerning the same.
The service of the order shall bind all credits due the judgment obligor and all
money and property of the judgment obligor in the possession or in the control
of such person, corporation, or juridical entity from the time of service; and
the court may also require notice of such proceedings to be given to any party
to the action in such manner as it may deem proper. (39a)
Lakas Atenista 44
So under Section 36, you can ask the court to render judgment to allow you to subpoena the obligor
and take the witness stand subject to questioning so that you can discover where his properties are. So
in effect, Section 36 is related to modes of discovery. This is actually a mode of discovery. This is a type
of deposition taking. It is related to the subject of deposition taking where the discovery of the witness
stand to effect execution.
EXAMPLE: The sheriff did not find any property of the obligor. So the obligee can file a motion
under Section 36 for examination of the obligor under oath hoping that in the course of asking
questions, he might make some admissions. And the procedure is the same as in deposition but this is
only done right inside the courtroom.
On the other hand under Section 37, you can also examine people whom you believe owe the
obligor such as his debtors, or those holding his property, so that you can discover all his collectibles
and ask that the same be garnished. So this time, it is the “obligor” of the judgment obligor who will be
examined.
EXAMPLE: Kenneth, Thadd, and Francis owe the judgment obligor a sum of money. The obligee
can file a motion under Section 37 to subpoena Kenneth, Thadd and Francis to find out if it is true that
they are indebted to the judgment obligor. In this case, the obligee can as the court to garnish the
money.
So, those are the objects of Sections 36 and 37. Of course there are others, just go over them.
Sec. 38. Enforcement of attendance and conduct of examination. A party or

other person may be compelled, by an order or subpoena, to attend before the
court or commissioner to testify as provided in the two preceding sections, and
upon failure to obey such order or subpoena or to be sworn, or to answer as a
witness or to subscribe his deposition, may be punished for contempt as in other
cases. Examinations shall not be unduly prolonged, but the proceedings may be
adjourned from time to time, until they are completed. If the examination is
before a commissioner, he must take it in writing and certify it to the court.
All examinations and answers before a court or commissioner must be under oath,
and when a corporation or other juridical entity answers, it must be on the oath
of an authorized officer or agent thereof. (40a)
Section 38 is the continuation of Section 37. If the judgment obligor, or Kenneth, Thad and Francis
refuse to comply with the subpoena, they can be punished for contempt.
Sec. 39. Obligor may pay execution against obligee. After a writ of
execution against property has been issued, a person indebted to the judgment
obligor may pay to the sheriff holding the writ of execution the amount of his
debt or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the judgment, in the
manner prescribed in section 9 of this Rule, and the sheriff's receipt shall be
a sufficient discharge for the amount so paid or directed to be credited by the
judgment obligee on the execution. (41a)
Here, there is a change of the party creditor. The best example is garnishment from a bank. B is the
debtor of the judgment obligor. If B, instead of paying the judgment obligor, will pay the judgment
creditor, B is no longer indebted to the judgment obligor.
Sec. 40. Order for application of property and income to satisfaction of

judgment. The court may order any property of the judgment obligor, or money due
him, not exempt from execution, in the hands of either himself or another
person, or of a corporation or other juridical entity, to be applied to the
satisfaction of the judgment, subject to any prior rights over such property.
If, upon investigation of his current income and expenses, it appears that
the earnings of the judgment obligor for his personal services are more than
necessary for the support of his family, the court may order that he pay the
judgment in fixed monthly installments, and upon his failure to pay any such
installment when due without good excuse, may punish him for indirect contempt.
(42a)
Lakas Atenista 45
If upon investigation of his current income and expenses, it appears that the earnings of the
judgment obligor for his personal services are more than necessary for the support of his family, the
court may order that he pay the judgment obligee in fixed monthly installments, and upon his failure
to pay any such installment when due without good excuse, may punish him for indirect contempt.
Q: Can the salary of an employee be garnished?

A: Yes IF there is excess for support of his family. (Section 40) Section 40 related to Section 13,
paragraph [i] properties exempt from execution:
(i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for
his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary
for the support of his family;
Normally, you cannot levy on the earnings of a person which he needs for support of his family.
But actually, it is not the entire earnings because if you’re earning a lot, it is more than sufficient for
your family. So the excess of your income can be garnished under Section 40.
Sec. 41. Appointment of receiver. The court may appoint a receiver of the
property of the judgment obligor; and it may also forbid a transfer or other
disposition of, or any interference with, the property of the judgment obligor
not exempt from execution. (43a)
The court may appoint a receiver who is an officer of the court who will manage the property of
the litigants pending litigation. This remedy is found under Rule 59 on Receivership. The purpose of
receivership is to preserve the property by placing it in the hands of the court to remove it from the
control of a party because a party may dispose of the property.
Sec. 42. Sale of ascertainable interest of judgment obligor in real estate.

If it appears that the judgment obligor has an interest in real estate in the
place in which proceedings are had, as mortgagor or mortgagee or otherwise, and
his interest therein can be ascertained without controversy, the receiver may be
ordered to sell and convey such real estate or the interest of the obligor
therein; and such sale shall be conducted in all respects in the same manner as
is provided for the sale of real estate upon execution, and the proceedings
thereon shall be approved by the court before the execution of the deed. (44a)
EXAMPLE: The obligor turns out to have an interest in real property as a mortgagee, or he has a
right to redeem, or right to foreclose, or right to repurchase. The obligee can levy on these rights
because these rights are property rights by themselves. This time, it is not the property which is sold
but your interest.
Sec. 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person claims the
property. If it appears that a person or corporation, alleged to have property
of the judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an interest in the
property adverse to him or denies the debt, the court may authorize, by an order
made to that effect, the judgment obligee to institute an action against such
person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a
transfer or other disposition of such interest or debt within one hundred twenty
(120) days from notice of the order, and may punish disobedience of such order
as for contempt. Such order may be modified or vacated at any time by the court
which issued it, or by the court in which the action is brought, upon such terms
as may be just. (45a)
EXAMPLE: The obligee cannot find any property of the obligor. But there is a rumor that Pong
owes the obligor a sum of money. Upon examination, Pong denies indebtedness. But the obligee
believes that he has evidence that Pong owes the obligor money. In this case, the obligee can ask the
court that he be allowed to file a collection case against Pong on behalf of the obligor.
Q: Can the obligee considered as a real party in interest in this case?

A: YES. The obligee is now considered as a representative party. Section 43 is an example of the
phrase, “or a party authorized by law or these Rules…” under Rule 3, Section 3:
Lakas Atenista 46
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. x x x x x A representative may be a

trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a
party authorized by law or these Rules. x x x x x x
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
Sec. 44. Entry of satisfaction of judgment by clerk of court. Satisfaction

of a judgment shall be entered by the clerk of court in the court docket, and in
the execution book, upon the return of a writ of execution showing the full
satisfaction of the judgment, or upon the filing of an admission to the
satisfaction of the judgment executed and acknowledged in the same manner as a
conveyance of real property by the judgment obligee or by his counsel unless a
revocation of his authority is filed, or upon the endorsement of such admission
by the judgment obligee or his counsel on the face of the record of the
judgment. (46a)
Sec. 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without admission. Whenever a

judgment is satisfied in fact, or otherwise than upon an execution, on demand of
the judgment obligor, the judgment obligee or his counsel must execute and
acknowledge, or indorse, an admission of the satisfaction as provided in the
last preceding section, and after notice and upon motion the court may order
either the judgment obligee or his counsel to do so, or may order the entry of
satisfaction to be made without such admission. (47a)
Q: What does satisfaction of judgement mean?

A: SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT is the compliance with or fulfillment of the mandate thereof
(31 Am. Jur. 354).
Execution is not the same as satisfaction. Execution is the method of enforcement of a judgment.
Satisfaction refers to compliance with or fulfillment of the mandate of judgment. Normally, execution
precedes satisfaction. But you can satisfy a judgment without execution by simply paying voluntarily.
And when the judgment is satisfied, it has to be recorded the manner of which is found in Sections 44
and 45 – either the sheriff himself will record “fully satisfied,” or, the creditor will file an admission that
the judgment is fully satisfied, or, the debtor on motion will ask that it be recorded that he has already
paid.
Q: Who may compel satisfaction of judgment?

A: Satisfaction of judgment may be compelled by the judgment-creditor by means of execution,
or by the judgment-debtor by means of voluntary payment. (Salvante vs. Ubi Cruz, 88 Phil. 236)
Now, here is an interesting question which has not yet been asked in the Bar. They were expecting
it as early as 2 years ago.
Q: Can a plaintiff appeal from the judgment and at the same time move for execution of the same?
Can you do both without being self-contradictory? Can you demand satisfaction of judgment and at
the same time appeal said judgment?
A: PRIOR CASES say, you cannot do it because it is inconsistent. When you comply with the
satisfaction of judgment, you are already accepting the correctness of judgment. But when you are
appealing it, you do not accept the same. That was the old ruling which was MODIFIED in the case of
VITAL-GOSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS

212 SCRA 235 [1992] (en banc)
ISSUE: Whether or not a judgment creditor is estopped from appealing or seeking

modification of a judgment which has been executed at his instance.
HELD: It depends upon the nature of the judgment as being indivisible or not. This is
the doctrine laid down by this Court in a case decided as early as 1925, Verches v. Rios,
where the judgment is INDIVISIBLE, acceptance of full satisfaction of the judgment
annihilates the right to further prosecute the appeal; and that even partial execution by
compulsory legal process at the instance of the prevailing party, places said party in
Lakas Atenista 47
estoppel to ask that the judgment be amended.” Indivisible means either you accept it as
correct or you appeal. But you can not have your cake and eat it too.
“Where the judgment is DIVISIBLE, estoppel should not operate against the judgment
creditor who causes implementation of a part of the decision by writ of execution. This is the
clear import of Verches .and the precedents therein invoked. The principle is fully consistent
not only with the opinion that acceptance of payment of only the uncontroverted part of the
claim should not preclude the plaintiff from prosecuting his appeal, to determine whether
he should not have been allowed more, but also with logic and common sense.” In other
words, if a judgment is divisible, there is no prohibition.
EXAMPLE of DIVISIBLE JUDGMENT: A judgment adjudicating 2 or more causes of action – I am

satisfied with one cause but I am not with the other. So, my appeal is only on the 2nd cause of action
where the award should be higher. I am not appealing in the first cause of action and the defendant did
not also appeal. So I can move to execute that portion of judgment, as far as the first cause of action is
concerned and continue with my appeal on the second. This is a divisible judgment. This is allowed.
PROBLEM: Plaintiff sues for P1 million damages. The court gave an award of P500,000 only (one-
half the damages sued for). Defendant did not appeal because he is satisfied with the judgement.
Meaning, he accepts the liability of up to P500,000, “Judgment is good.” Plaintiff, however, is not
satisfied, “It should be P1 million, so I will appeal.” He believes that even if he loses the appeal, he is
insured as to the P500,000.
Q: Can plaintiff move for the satisfaction of P500,000 and let the other half continue on appeal?
A: YES, I think so. Anyway, there is no quarrel with respect to the first half. To my mind, this is a
DIVISIBLE judgment since defendant accepts it and even if plaintiff loses appeal, the former is still
liable up to P500,000. So the plaintiff might as well claim it now for it is final insofar as the defendant is
concerned while plaintiff’s appeal is with respect to the balance. This is a possibility under the ruling in
VITAL- GOSON.
Sec. 46. When principal bound by judgment against surety. When a judgment is
rendered against a party who stands as surety for another, the latter is also
bound from the time that he has notice of the action or proceeding, and an
opportunity at the surety's request to join in the defense. (48a)
When there is a judgment against the surety, the principal debtor is also bound by the judgment
from the time he has notice of the action or proceeding and an opportunity at the surety’s request to
join in the defense. The surety is only liable legally but the real party liable is the debtor.
RES ADJUDICATA
And finally, the most important section in Rule 39 is Section 47 – effect of judgment or final order.
This is what we call the principle of res adjudicata.
Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or

final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in
respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a
deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or
status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or
final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or
administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however,
the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be
prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the
matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised
in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
Lakas Atenista 48
final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was
actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (49a)
We know what this is all about – when the matter is already decided or finish already, you cannot
re-open that easily. The direct provision of law which enunciates that principle is Section 47, which is
composed of 3 portions: paragraphs [a], [b] and [c].
Now, paragraph [a] is the principle of res adjudicata as applied in judgment in rem (binding on the
whole world) or at least quasi in rem. Paragraphs [b] and [c] are the application of the same doctrine
with respect to judgment in personam (binding only on the parties).
RES ADJUDICATA and RES JUDICATA are the same. In the Philippines, that is influenced by
Roman Law and Spanish Law (Pua vs. Lapitan, 57 O.G. 4914) But the principle is known worldwide,
although maybe known by another name. In Anglo-American law, it is known as the doctrine of
Estoppel By Judgment (Fajardo vs. Bayona, 98 Phil. 659). But it is the same. The concept is similar. That
is why in the 1994 case of
SALUD vs. COURT OF APPEALS

236 SCRA 384 [1994]
HELD: “The rules of res judicata are of common law origin and they initially evolved
from court decisions. It is now considered a principle of universal jurisprudence forming a
part of the legal system of all civilized nations.”
Q: What is the FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests?
A: It rests from the principle that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more
than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or where an opportunity for such trial had been given, the judgment of the court shall be
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. Otherwise, without this doctrine, litigation
would become interminable, rights of parties would be involved in endless confusion, courts would be
stripped of their most efficient powers, and the most important function of government, that of
ascertaining and enforcing rights, would go unfulfilled. (Zambales Academy vs. Villanueva, L-19884,
May 8, 1969; People vs. Macadaeg, 91 Phil. 410; Oberiano vs. Sobremesana, L-4622, May 30, 1952;
Peñalosa vs. Tuazon, 22 Phil. 303)
I think we agree with that. Imagine, if two persons litigated for years over the ownership of a parcel
of land. Then after years of litigation, all the way to the SC, defendant won. Final. After one generation,
both plaintiff and defendant are dead but their children would continue. Here comes the children of
the plaintiff raising the same issue of ownership. So, there is no end if there is no res judicata.
REQUISITES OF RES ADJUDICATA
What are the requisites of res adjudicata? How do we know, since there are 2 cases here? Does it
mean that simply because there is a case between us, there will be no more case between us in the
future? NO.
Q: So what are the requisites of res adjudicata?

A: There is res judicata if the following REQUISITES are present:
1.) The judgment or order invoked as res adjudicata must be final;

2.) The court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the
parties;
3.) The judgment or order must be upon the merits; and
4.) There must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and
identity of cause of action.
Lakas Atenista 49
So the elements are similar with litis pendentia. Actually, they are based on the same rule – splitting
of the cause of action. The only difference is, in litis pendentia, the first action is still pending. In res
adjudicata, the first action has already been decided and the decision has already become final.
First Requisite: JUDGMENT OF ORDER INVOKED MUST BE FINAL
When it says ‘final’, the previous judgment has been final and executory (Hubahib vs. Insular Drug,
64 Phil. 119) Meaning, it can no longer be changed. This is because there is such a thing as final and
appealable. A final and executory judgment is already beyond the power of the court to alter while a
final and appealable judgment is still subject to modification by the appellate court. (Macapinlac vs.
CA, 86 Phil. 359)
So where there is a judgment now that you received, and before it becomes executory, you filed
another case, it is not res judicata. It is litis pendentia because the first case is still pending.
EXAMPLE: Jessa files a case against Charles. Charles lost and then appealed. While his appeal is
pending, Jessa filed the same case against Charles. Charles filed a motion to dismiss the second case.
The ground for the motion to dismiss should be Litis Pendentia because while there is already a
decision, the same is not yet final and executory. It is still on appeal. In such case, it is improper to
invoke the principle of res adjudicata because the first element is missing.
Q: Now, when did the first judgment become final? Is it before the second case is filed? Or is it after
the second case filed?
A: Either one. It could have been final before the filing of the second action or after, provided when
the defendant invoked it, the first judgment is already final. (Galiancia vs. CA, 173 SCRA 42)
Second Requisite: THE COURT RENDERING THE SAME MUST HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES
Meaning, the first judgment is valid because if the court never acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties and rendered judgment, the judgment is void and cannot be invoked as res
judicata. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921)
Q: May a voidable judgment be invoked as res adjudicata?

A: YES because such kind of judgment is binding upon the parties until annulled. (Reyes vs.
Barretto-Datu, 94 Phil. 446)
Now, the classic example of the second element is the case which I mentioned to you when we were
in Rule 17 – the case of
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK (RBP) vs. MOLINA

166 SCRA 39 [1988]
FACTS: The RPB filed a case against the defendant for a sum of money. Defendant
cannot be summoned because his whereabouts is now unknown. Several attempts made by
the plaintiff to look for him failed. After a while the court dismissed the complaint for RBP’s
failure to prosecute. And the order of dismissal was silent. So, following Section 3 of Rule
17, the dismissal is with prejudice – “it shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits,
unless the order provides otherwise.”
Then later on, the plaintiff (RPB) discovered the whereabouts of the defendant. The RPB
re-filed the compliant. Defendant moved to dismiss because when the first complaint was
dismissed and the order of dismissal was silent then the dismissal has the effect of an
adjudication on the merits.
HELD: Since We are talking of res adjudicata, let us correlate it with the elements of res
adjudicata under Rule 39.
Lakas Atenista 50
One of the elements of res adjudicata is: When the case is terminated, the court has
jurisdiction over the case both as to the person and the subject matter;
In the case of RPB, the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
because he was never served with summons. Therefore, such dismissal did not have the
effect of res adjudicata. The second element of res judicata is missing.
Third Requisite: THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER MUST BE UPON THE MERITS
What do we mean by this? A judgment on the merits for the purpose of res judicata is one finally
settling the issues raised in the pleadings (Manila Electric Co. vs. Artiaga, 50 Phil. 144). Normally, it is
after trial when there is presentation of evidence.
Therefore, when a complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, even if said
dismissal becomes final, the plaintiff can re-file the case because the dismissal upon improper venue or
lack of jurisdiction is not upon the merits. It never dealt with the correctness or validity of the cause of
action. There should be trial, generally.
So, GENERALLY, a dismissal without a trial is not an adjudication upon the merits EXCEPT in
Rule 17, Section 3 where the case was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to appear during the
presentation of his evidence in chief, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable, period of time, or
failed to comply with the rules or order of the court. There is no trial there but according to Rule 17,
Section 3, the dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. This is the exception
even if there was no trial in the first case.
Fourth Requisite: THERE MUST BE, BETWEEN THE TWO CASES, IDENTITY OF PARTIES,
IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER, AND IDENTITY OF CAUSE OF ACTION
I. IDENTITY OF PARTIES
Q: When there is identity of parties for the purpose of res judicata?

A: There is identity of parties for the purpose of res judicata:
1.) When the parties in the second action are the same as the parties in the first action; or
2.) When the parties in the second action are successors-in-interest of the parties in the first
action, such as heirs or purchasers who acquired title after the commencement of the first
action.
EXAMPLE: The example I gave you, the quarrel between parents, then the children did
the same. That is the same parties. The children are the successors-in-interest of the original
parties, although literally they are not the same parties.
One good illustration of res adjudicata on identity of parties as applied in a labor case was the case
of
DELFIN vs. INCIONG
192 SCRA 151 [1990]
NOTE: The doctrine of res adjudicata applies not only to the decisions of regular courts
but can be invoked even in administrative cases. It also applies to decisions of
administrative bodies.
FACTS: In the case of DELFIN, a union filed a case of unfair labor practice (ULP) against
the employer. Then later on, the case was dismissed by the NLRC. When the case was
dismissed, the employees filed another case based on the same ULP. The employer invoked
res adjudicata and the complainants said, “No, it is not the same parties. In the first case, it
was the union. Now it is us (employees).”
Lakas Atenista 51
HELD: NO! When the union filed the first case, it was filing in behalf of the employees.
This is what you call representative party. In effect, it is the same party.
“While it is true that the complainants in the first charge was the union, in reality it had
no material interest in the outcome of the case. The real party who stands to be benefited or
defeated by a case brought in the name of the union are the union members themselves.
Since the judgment therein had become final and executory, the subsequent filing of another
ULP charge against the employer for the same violations committed during its existence, is
barred by res judicata.”
“The bringing of the same action in the name of the individual members of the union
will not take out the case from the ambit of the principle of res judicata.” So, it is still the
same parties.
II. IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER
Q: When is there identity of subject matter?

A: There is identity of subject matter if in the second case, the same thing is involved or included in
the first case. (Agregado vs. Muñoz, 26 Phil. 546)
EXAMPLE: A judgment in an action for the recovery of a large tract of land shall be a bar for a
subsequent action for the recovery of a smaller parcel included in the large tract. (Rubiso vs. Rivera, 41
Phil. 39)
EXAMPLE: A judgment in an action for accounting of a certain funds would be a bar for a
subsequent action for the partition of the same funds. (Chua Tan vs. Del Rosario, 57 Phil. 411)
EXAMPLE: A case for recovery of property was dismissed. The losing party file a second case for
recovery of the value of the property. In this case, there is res adjudicata. So, you can not deviate ‘no?
Kahit konting retoke lang, it is the same.
III. IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION
Q: When is there identity of causes of action for the purpose of res judicata?
A: There is identity of causes of action for the purpose of res judicata when the two actions are
based on the same delict or wrong committed by the defendant, even if the remedies be different
(Qiogue vs. Bautista, L-13159, Feb. 2, 1962). You cannot change the remedy in order to escape from the
principle of res adjudicata.
Sometimes, it is one of the hardest – same cause of action – because sometimes there are 2 causes of
action which are interrelated, even between the same parties. Now, if there are 2 interrelated causes of
action, there is no res adjudicata. Interrelated only, because the law says similar causes of action. That is
hard to determine.
That is why the SC had to give some tests to determine whether the causes of action are the same or
not. Among these tests given by the Court:
TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE THE SAME:
1) SAME EVIDENCE Test as laid down in the case of
AQUILA ESTATE vs. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO.

144 SCRA 482
HELD: Res adjudicata can not be applied even though in the 2 cases there is identity of
parties, subject matter, and relief prayed for, the evidence adduced to sustain the cause of
Lakas Atenista 52
action in the first case is not sufficient to sustain the second case. So, the evidence was
sufficient to prove the first case while the same evidence is not sufficient to prove the second
case. Therefore, it must be different cause of action for how come the same evidence will not
suffice anymore. So, it must be a different one.
2. INCONSISTENCY Test given in the case of
VALENCIA vs. RTC

184 SCRA 80
HELD: One test of the identity of cause of action is whether or not the judgment sought
in the subsequent case will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. Meaning, you are
asking for a decision which is in conflict with the original decision.
Q: Suppose there is an inconsistency, is this a sign of res adjudicata or no res judicata?

A: Well, I think if there is an inconsistency, that is a sign of res adjudicata because you are trying to
change what has already been rendered. To my mind, that is how it should be interpreted because if
the judgment I am seeking is inconsistent with what has been decided, then I think that is violating the
rule of res adjudicata – I am re-opening something which was already decided.
3.) And the test in the 1995 case of

GUEVARRA vs. BENITO
247 SCRA 570
HELD: The causes of action can not be the same if the cause of action in one case only
arose after the judgment in the other. The principle of res judicata extends only to the facts
and conditions as they existed at the time the judgment was rendered.
Those are the important principles to remember (read the cases in short).
RARE INSTANCES WHERE SC REFUSES TO ALLOW RES JUDICATA DESPITE ITS EXISTENCE
Another point, res adjudicata is a rule of law, rule of convenience, of practicality and when the
evidence are present, the courts shall not allow second litigation. We know that but I have to admit that
there are some rare cases where despite the elements of res adjudicata, the courts refused to allow it.
This what we call EQUITY CASES. But this is very rare. When there is a higher principle to be
observed rather than the rule of res adjudicata – there are higher values of society which would be
subverted if we will stick to res adjudicata. A good example is the case of
SUAREZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS

193 SCRA 183 [1991]
FACTS: This involves a custody case. A certain Rosemarie Manese file a petition for
habeas corpus for the recovery of her minor child from her former live-in partner or
common-law husband, Renato Suarez. Later, Manese filed a motion to dismiss the habeas
corpus case for she intended to pursue another remedy – custody of minor under Rule 99 of
the Rules of Court in Special Proceedings.
Actually, as observed by the SC, her move was wrong because you can obtain custody of
your child through habeas corpus. She though she had the wrong remedy, so she changed
it. Actually she was correct. The trouble is, she withdrew it. In the trial for the dismissal of
the habeas corpus, it was with prejudice so actually, it is on the merits ‘no?
Lakas Atenista 53
Thereafter, she filed the custody case against Suarez. The latter moved to dismiss on the
ground of res adjudicata. All the evidence are admitted there. There was a decision on the
merits.
HELD: “The principle of res judicata should be disregarded if its application would
involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality.” In other words, this is what we call EQUITY.
The application of the res adjudicata should be taken on a case to case basis; you cannot
say you apply res adjudicata through and through. It must be taken under the particular
facts obtained. Meaning, there are certain facts in that case which will warrant a deviation
from the usual rule, to do “otherwise would amount to denial of justice and/or bar to a
vindication of a legitimate grievance.”
“It is worth stating here that the controversy in the instant case is not just an ordinary
suit between parties over a trivial matter but a litigation initiated by the natural mother over
the welfare and custody of her child, in which the State has a paramount interest.” This is
not a simple collection case.
“The fundamental policy of the State as embodied in the Constitution in promoting and
protecting the welfare of children shall not be disregarded by the courts by mere
technicality in resolving disputes which involve the family and the youth.”
So there is a collision here between the family view found in the Constitution and the technical
principle of res adjudicata. If we sustain the principle of res adjudicata then the mother can no longer
recover her child. But if we disregard res judicata, the mother will be given a chance to get back her
child, which is higher in value than res judicata.
This principle observed in SUAREZ was actually repeated in the 1994 case of
SALUD vs. COURT OF APPEALS

233 SCRA 284 [1994]
HELD: “There should not be a mechanical and uncaring reliance on res judicata where
more important societal values deserve protection. The doctrine of res adjudicata is a rule of
justice which cannot be rigidly applied when it results to injustice.”
This is another pronouncement which leans on the equitable side of the situation rather than on the
observance of the technical rules of res adjudicata. You can disagree with the decision but the same can
not be wrong. This is what you call infallible. Infallible means no room for error. That is why Justice
Jackson said commenting on the US SC: “We are not final because we are infallible. But we are infallible
because we are final.”
BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT vs. CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT
If you have read the questionnaire in Remedial Law last September (1997), one of the questions
asked by the examiner is: Distinguish the concept of BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT and the concept
of CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT.
The two concepts are found in Section 47. The concept of bar by a former judgment is in paragraph
[b] and conclusiveness of judgment is in paragraph [c]. These are two parts of the res adjudicata rule.
The two concepts were discussed by the SC in the case of SALUD: The concept of Bar By A Former
Judgment is known in traditional terminology as merger or bar; and in modern terminology, it is called
CLAIM PRECLUSION; while Conclusiveness Of Judgment is traditionally known as collateral estoppel
and in modern terminology it is called ISSUE PRECLUSION.
Q: Distinguish BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT and CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT.

A: The following are the distinctions:
Lakas Atenista 54
1.) As to Effect: If you analyze paragraph [b], there are two judgments – in BAR BY A FORMER
JUDGMENT, the first judgment constitute an absolute bar to all matters directly adjudged
as well as matters that might have been adjudged; whereas
In CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT, the first judgment is conclusive only on matters
actually litigated and adjudged in the first action under paragraph [c].
2.) As to the Requisites: In BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT, there must be identity of parties,
subject matter, and cause of action; but
In CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT, even if there is identity of parties or subject matter, it
is not necessary that there is identity of causes of action.
Of course, for purposes of the bar exams, that kind of answer will suffice but mas maganda if there
is illustration: Kung bar by prior judgment – the first judgment is res adjudicata to the second or
matters that have been adjudged and matters that could have been adjudged in relation thereto.
EXAMPLE of Bar by a Former Judgment: Compulsory counterclaim. I filed a case against you for
recovery of land. Meron ka pa lang claim sa akin for reimbursement for necessary expenses. It must be
set-up in the main action otherwise it is barred forever. But you did not set it up and then afterwards,
you file a case against me for reimbursement for necessary expenses, I will move to dismiss. Your claim
is already barred because you should have raised it as a compulsory counterclaim in the first action.
The barring of the counterclaim is considered as the application of res adjudicata by applying the
concept of bar by a former judgment.
EXAMPLE of Conclusiveness of Judgment: The debtor borrows from the creditor P3 million
payable in 3 installments without any acceleration clause. When the first installment fell due the
creditor sue the debtor and the debtor raised the defense of forgery, “That the promissory note is forged
and as an alternative defense assuming that the promissory note is valid, the first installment was already
extinguished by payment.” After trial, the court decided against the defendant. Tapos na. Now, the
second installment fell due. It is another cause of action. Now, here comes the plaintiff filing the case to
collect the second installment.
Q: Can the debtor raise again, in the second case, the defense of FORGERY of the promissory note?
A: NO. Tapos na yan. We have already decided that the promissory note was genuine and that
there was no forgery. This is the same promissory note that we are talking about. So, in other words,
the issue of forgery is already adjudged in the first case and therefore res adjudicata in the second
installment.
Q: Can the debtor raise the defense of PAYMENT, that the second installment is already paid or is it
also barred?
A: YES, because in the first case what was resolved was whether the first installment is paid. The
judgment is already conclusive on matters directly adjudged but not to matters which have not been
adjudged. The issue on whether the second or third installment have already been paid was never
adjudged in the first case. That is the application. Take note that there is no identity of cause of action.
Another example of Conclusiveness of Judgment was the ruling in the case
CARANDANG vs. VENTURANZA

133 SCRA 344 [1984]
FACTS: This involves a conflict between two brothers, B1 and B2. There is already bad
blood between them because according to B1, B2 appropriated all the properties of their
parents. So there was this threat from B1 to sue B2 to recover his share.
So B2 consulted his friend X. X suggested that B2 enters into a simulated sale with X. B2
sold his property to X. As expected, B1 filed a case against both of them to annul or rescind
the action. Unfortunately, B1 has never proved that the sale was simulated. The case was
dismissed.
Lakas Atenista 55
Then later B1 died. After that, B2 said to X, “Isauli mo na sa akin ang mga properties ko.” X
said, “What are you talking about? I already bought it from you, akin na ito!” B2 filed a case
against X. The defense of X is res adjudicata.
HELD: There is NO res adjudicata. In the first place, one of the elements of res
adjudicata is identity of parties. Of course, both of them are also parties of the first case but
they were not adverse to each other. They were co-defendants in the first case.
Res adjudicata is only applicable between adverse parties in the former suit and not
between parties. Co-parties for the judgment therein ordinarily settle claims as to their
relative rights and liabilities as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants per se.
But the second reason is, the cause of action is completely different and therefore the
judgment in the first case is conclusive only insofar as the right of B1 is concerned. It cannot
be conclusive as to the rights of B2 and X because it is a separate cause of action.
Another was the 1993 case of

VDA FISH BROKER vs. NLRC
228 SCRA 681 [1993]
FACTS: A complaint filed by an employee for non-payment of service incentive leave,

COLA, 13th month pay, holiday pay, is dismissed based on the finding that no
employer-employee relationship existed between the complainant and the respondent. The
ruling became final.
Subsequently, the same complainants filed another case against the same respondent for
reinstatement due to illegal dismissal. (How can you file for reinstatement na wala man
kayong ER-EE relationship in the first case???)
ISSUE: Is the finding of no ER-EE relationship in the first case res adjudicata to the
second case for illegal termination?
HELD: YES. “The issue of employer-employee relationship is crucial in the

determination of the rights of the parties in both cases. Res adjudicata applies even when the
cause of action is not similar under the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. The ruling in
the first case that there is no Employer-Employee relationship between the parties is
conclusive in subsequent cases although the cause of action is not the same.”
“If were we to ignore the principle of res judicata, an absurd situation would arise where
the same administrative agency would have diametrically opposed conclusions based on
apparently similar circumstances.” This is what will happen - for the second case, there is
ER-EE relationship. It is the same agency which said there is none in the first case. Conflict!
OTHER PRINCIPLES IN LAW WHICH MAY BE CONFUSED WITH RES JUDICATA:

A.) LAW OF THE CASE
B.) STARE DECISIS
Another question that can be asked here is, how to explain and distinguish 3 concepts which appear
to be similar. These 3 concepts are all anchored on the same thing: there is a final judgement. The
concept of res adjudicata, law of the case and stare decisis. That was also asked in the bar.
We already know RES ADJUDICATA – finality of judgment, or the issues decided in a case, once
the decision has become final and executory and cannot be litigated again by the same parties in a
subsequent action involving the same subject matter. (Peñalosa vs. Tuazon, supra.)
Q: What about the LAW OF THE CASE?

A: LAW OF THE CASE means that legal conclusions announced on a first appeal, whether on the
general law of the law as applied to the concrete facts, not only prescribe the duty and limit the power
of the trial court to strict obedience and conformity thereto, but they become and remain the law of the
Lakas Atenista 56
case in all after steps, whether in the lower court of in the appellate court on a subsequent appeal.
(Zarate vs. Dir. of Lands, 39 Phil. 747)
EXAMPLE of law of the case: There is a case between us and then an issue is raised before the CA
and there is a ruling, right or wrong. That ruling will subsequently bind the parties in the same
litigation. Once the case comes back, the future now of the case will be governed by that ruling. Right
or wrong, that principle will now be the controlling principle affecting the parties. The principle will
continue until the case is terminated.
TABACO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

239 SCRA 485 [1994]
ISSUE: Can a case be re-opened if the law of the case has been changed?
HELD: NO, because when the case was decided, it was the governing law at the time,
even if it turns out to be wrong.
“Under the law of the case concept, whatever is once irrevocably established as the
controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the law of the case between the same
parties in the same case, whether correct or not, so long as the facts on which such decision
was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. Such stability and
conclusiveness given to final judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction are said to be
grounded on reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness and economy as well as
protection of the time and interests of the litigants.”
A good EXAMPLE: File ako ng kaso – collection of an unpaid loan based on the provision of the
Civil Code but the debtor said, “There is no cause of action because the provision of the civil code is
unconstitutional.” After trial the court said, “Yes, article so- so of the Civil Code is unconstitutional. The
debtor is not obliged to pay.” Tapos na. Final na ang decision because there was no appeal. What will
happen? We are bound. As far as this case is concerned, the Civil Code is unconstitutional. That is the
law of the case.
KILOSBAYAN vs. MORATO
246 SCRA 540 [1995]
HELD: The doctrine of the law of the case applies whenever the case before the court
came for the second time after a ruling of the appellate court (???).
Q: What you mean by STARE DECISIS?

A: Stare Decisis means that the decision of a court should stand as precedents for future guidance
(Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., 1228) Example is the decisions of the SC which stands as precedents
for future cases. The purpose of this is to attain stability and judicial order. That is why we are citing
precedents.
ROSALES vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

154 SCRA 153 [1987]
HELD: “Precedents are helpful in deciding cases when they are substantially identical
with previous litigations. Argumentum a simili valet in lege. Earlier decisions are guideposts
that can lead us in the right direction as we tread the 'highways and byways of the law in
the search for truth and justice. These pronouncements represent the wisdom of the past.
They are the voice of vanished judges talking to the future. Except where there is a need to
reverse them because of an emergent viewpoint or an altered situation, they urge us
strongly that, indeed, the trodden path is best.”
Lakas Atenista 57
‘Trodden Path’ – example is when you go on hiking like in Mt. Apo. If there is already a path or trail,
you will not have a hard time looking for your way up to the peak of Mt. Apo. There is already a way
which will guide you to reach your destination.
But the doctrine of stare decisis admittedly does not mean that courts should be slave forever to
precedents. A doctrine long standing has also been reversed. The SC explained also why once in a
while it abandons the doctrine of stare decisis:
PEOPLE vs. MUÑOZ

170 SCRA 107 [1989]
HELD: “If we have seen fit to take a second look at the doctrine on which we were all
agreed before, it is not because of a change in the composition of this body. It is virtually the
same Court that is changing its mind after reflecting on the question again in the light of
new perspectives. The decisions of this Court are not petrified rules grown rigid once
pronounced but vital, growing things subject to change as all life is. While we are told that
the trodden path is best, this should not prevent us from opening a fresh trial or exploring
the other side or testing a new idea in a spirit of continuing inquiry.”
Q: Distinguish Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis.

A: RES ADJUDICATA operates between two actions involving the same parties and the same
cause(of action); while STARE DECISIS refers to cases with different parties.
STARE DECISIS refers only to decisions of the SC (decisions of the CA are not a basis of stare
decisis); while the doctrine of RES ADJUDICATA refers to all courts: SC, CA, RTC and MTC.
Q: Distinguish Law Of The Case and Stare Decisis.

A: LAW OF THE CASE refers only to one case which may or may not be invoked in subsequent
cases, while STARE DECISIS may refer to various cases which are usually invoked in subsequent cases.
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of a

judgment or final order of a tribunal or a foreign country, having jurisdiction
to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment
or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or
final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact. (50a)
Sec. 48 is actually a law on conflict of laws - effect of foreign judgment. If a judgment is rendered in
U.S. and is being invoked in the Philippines, should we honor it? Yes. So, is it conclusive? Yes. The law
says, in case of judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive effectively.
PROBLEM: Mortverine and Mistiqla were both in the U.S. and they quarreled about the ownership
of a ring. They went to an American court. After trial, the court ruled that Mortverine is the legitimate
owner of the ring. The judgment became final. Subsequently both of them came to the Philippines and
Mistiqla filed a case against Mortverine to recover the same ring. Sabi ni Mortverine, “Res adjudicata na
ito eh, tapos na yan. Here is the decision in America. Therefore it is settled.”
Q: Is A correct?
A: YES. Under paragraph [a]. In case of a foreign judgment upon a SPECIFIC THING, the judgment
is conclusive upon the parties. Hindi puwedeng buksan. That’s already litigated abroad, merong nang
decision. We will respect it.
Lakas Atenista 58
Suppose the judgment is against a person. The law says it is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties.
EXAMPLE: A and B were both Americans. They were married in the U.S. and obtained a divorce in
the states. They came to the Philippines. The issue is whether the marriage was validly terminated.
According to one party, “Yes, meron man tayong divorce ba.” Is the decree of divorce abroad involving
these American couple allowed in the Philippines considering we have no divorce here? That is their
law. It is presumptive evidence of a right of the parties.
EXAMPLE: H and W are Philippine citizens. They went abroad and somehow able to get a divorce
in an American court which became final. They came back here. Will the Philippine court honor the
divorce? Here, the judgment may be repelled by want of jurisdiction of the American court, etc. The
judgment is presumed to be valid unless you can attack by showing lack of jurisdiction.
What is the principle in private international law? A judgment of divorce rendered by an American
court between 2 Filipinos is null and void. Why? The American court never acquired jurisdiction over
the status of the parties (because they are not U.S. citizens). But judgment in personam is honored here
except when there is want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
of law or fact.
Q: How do you enforce a foreign judgment?

A: The usual procedure, you file a case against the same defendant here and the cause of action is
enforcement of a foreign judgment. And then the Philippine court will render a judgment enforcing it
and then you can execute.
The SC commented on the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the Philippines in the case of
PHILSEC vs. COURT OF APPEALS

June 19, 1997
HELD: “While this court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in
several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample
opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary for this
purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment.
What is essential is that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for
the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect
to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject
to proof to the contrary.”
With that, we are now through with Rule 39. (Wheew!)
-oOo-
Lakas Atenista 59

Rule 39 - Execution

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rule 39 - Execution

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 39 – Execution,

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Satisfaction

Q: Who will enforce the judgment?

Q: How is execution generally done?

Q: Against whom shall the execution issue?

Q: What portion in the decision is normally the subject of execution ?

Q: What are the classes of execution under the law?

II. As to how it is enforced (Section 6):

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. – Execution shall issue

Q: What are the conditions for compulsory execution?

PELAYO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

[3] WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS NOVATED BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT.

Q: Can I execute on the original judgment?

1.) Rule 38, Section 5:

Rule 38, Section 5: Preliminary injunction pending proceedings. – The court

The CA may issue a writ of preliminary injunction – annulment of judgment, certiorari, or

So, those are the exceptions.

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

Q: How do you execute in that situation?

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?

Sec. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. - Judgments in action for

GENERAL RULE: If there is an appeal, the judgment will be stayed.

Q: Give an example of a law which declares a judgement to be immediately executory?

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?

Q: Therefore, what are the requisites for discretionary execution?

Q: What will happen if there are no good reasons?

Section 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. - Where the executed

3.) Where the appeal is for the purpose of DELAY;

4.) When the successful party files a BOND;

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. PUNO

The second paragraph of Section 2 [a]:

Q: When will the court lose jurisdiction over the case ?

Rule 41, Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - A party’s appeal

Rule 39, Section 2 [b]:

b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several,

RULE 36, Sec. 4. Several judgments. - In an action against several

Q: Can there be two or more judgments arising out of one case?

There is one interesting case on execution pending appeal – the case of

RCPI vs. LANTIN

Sec. 3. Stay of discretionary execution. - Discretionary execution issued

Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and

Q: How do you execute a judgment?

Q: How is the execution enforced?

Q: What is a dormant judgment?

Q: So, how can that (dormant) judgment be awaken?

Q: When will it be barred by the statute of limitations ?

Q: Give the exception to the rule on dormant judgment.

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

5 years 5 years 5 years 5 years

ARCENAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. - In case of the death of a

This is related to Rule 3, Section 20.

Q: What is the effect of a death of a party on the execution of a judgment?

Sec. 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution. - The writ of

EXECUTION OF MONEY JUDGMENT

Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. -

(a) Immediate payment on demand. - The officer shall enforce an execution of

STEPS: (under paragraph [a])

Section 9 [a], 2nd par. – If the judgment obligee or his authorized

Let us go to the third paragraph:

Q: What is the importance of levy with respect to execution of a money judgment?