Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

G.R.No.

186199, September 07, 2016 Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises However, as mandated by Section 6, Rule 39, if
from the MeTC, directing them to vacate the the prevailing party fails to have the decision
EDGARDO A. QUILO AND ADNALOY
property and remove their houses therein by enforced by a motion after the lapse of five (5)
VILLAHERMOSA, Petitioners, v. TEODULA
virtue of the Writ of Execution. years, the said judgment is reduced to a right of
BAJAO, Respondent.
action which must be enforced by the institution
In opposition to the Writ, petitioners filed a
DECISION of a complaint in a regular court within ten (10)
Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on the ground
years from the time the judgment becomes
PEREZ, J.: that the Writ of Execution was issued beyond the
final.27
lapse of the 5-year period within which to
FACTS: execute a judgment based on Section 6, Rule 39 In the case at bar, the
Bajao filed an ejectment case against Eduardo B. of the Rules of Court Decision, despite the timely motion to ex
Saclag et al in the MeTC of Manila ecute the same, was not implemented by the
court. The failure to implement the Decision
the MeTC ruled in favor of Bajao in a Decision ISSUE:
impelled Bajao to again file another motion to
dated 20 November 1998. 1st) W/N Bajao availed of the right action? No execute. However, Bajao's course of action to
It was elevated to the Supreme Court, the execute the Decision is not in accordance with
Rule 39 section 6 provides Section 6, Rule 39; Bajao merely filed a motion.
petition was denied for failure to show a
reversible error committed by the CA in a Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent As already stated, the correct remedy is to file a
Resolution dated 14 June 2000. Pursuant action. — A final and executory judgment or complaint for revival of judgment in a regular
thereto, the Court issued an Entry of order may be executed on motion within five (5) court within ten (10) years from the time the
Judgment declaring that the Resolution has years from the date of its entry. After the lapse judgment becomes final.
become final and executory on 28 July 2000. of such time, and before it is barred by the Clearly, the proper remedy is to file a complaint
statute of limitations, a judgment may be for revival of judgment, which Bajao did not
By virtue of the Entry of Judgment, Bajao filed a enforced by action. The revived judgment may avail of.
Motion for Execution on 8 August 2000. also be enforced by motion within five (5) years
from the date of its entry and thereafter by 2.) W/N THE JUDGMENT OF THE RTC CAN STILL
7 years thereafter, the Motion for Execution was action before it is barred by the statute of BE EXECUTED DESPITE THE LAPSE OF THE 5-YEAR
acted upon by the RTC on 23 October 2007, limitations. PERIOD AS PROVIDED BY RULE 39 SECTION 6?
ordering the remand of the records of the case to Yes, Liberal interpretation.
the court of origin or the MeTC. As the Decision became final and executory on 28
July 2000, Bajao has five (5) years or until 28 July
Finally, on 13 November 2007, the MeTC 2005 within which to move for its execution. As a General Rule, a cursory application of Rule
granted the Motion for Execution and issued a Indeed, Bajao, in compliance with Rule 39, timely 39; Section 6 would dictated that the Court
Writ of Execution on 28 November 2007. moved for the execution of the Decision when he should rule in favor of Quilo. However, as an
On 27 February 2008, Edgardo Quilo and Adnaloy filed a Motion for Execution on 8 August 2000. exception the Court applied a liberal
Villahermosa, petitioners herein, received a interpretation.
The circumstances of the present case are
replete with peculiarities which impel this Court
to exercise its equity jurisdiction. This case, has
after all, been raised to this Court for the second
time.

Therefore, in pursuit of equity justice, this Court


resolves to regard the second motion for
execution as a complaint for revival of judgment
to allow this Court to rule on the merits of the
case. Apparently, the failure to execute the
Decision is not Bajao's fault. In fact, Bajao timely
filed a motion to execute within the 5-year
reglementary period. The delay in the
execution, caused by some reasons unknown to
this Court, should not penalize an otherwise
eager litigant. This Court, in the end, must
promote substantial justice and get out of strict
adherence to technical rules if it will only
perpetuate injustice. Otherwise stated, this
Court considers Bajao's second Motion for
Execution as a complaint for revival of
judgment. The action, therefore, was filed well-
within the ten-year period in accordance with
the rules.

Potrebbero piacerti anche