4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

  

G.R. No. 203947. February 26, 2014.*

RUFA A. RUBIO, BARTOLOME BANTOTO, LEON
ALAGADMO, RODRIGO DELICTA, and ADRIANO
ALABATA, petitioners, vs. LOURDES ALABATA,
respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Execution of Judgments;

Revival of Judgments; Once a judgment becomes final and
executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of
right by mere motion within five (5) years from the date of entry of
judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision enforced
by a motion after the lapse of five (5) years, the said judgment is
reduced to a right of action which must be enforced by the
institution of a complaint in a regular court within ten (10) years
from the time the judgment becomes final.—Indeed, both the RTC-
42 and the CA were acting in accordance with the rules and
jurisprudence when they dismissed the action for revival of
judgment. Section 6 is clear. Once a judgment becomes final and
executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of
right by mere motion within five (5) years

_______________

* THIRD DIV ISION.

555

from the date of entry of judgment. If the prevailing party fails to

have the decision enforced by a motion after the lapse of five (5)
years, the said judgment is reduced to a right of action which must
be enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular court
within ten (10) years from the time the judgment becomes final. An
action for revival of judgment is governed by Article 1144 (3),
Article 1152 of the Civil Code and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court.
Same; Same; Principle of Equity; Liberal Interpretation;
Laches; Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is
desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict
enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it
is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine

of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.—
Due to the peculiarities of this case, the Court, in the exercise of its
equity jurisdiction, relaxes the rules and decides to allow the action
for the revival of judgment filed by petitioners. The Court believes
that it is its bounden duty to exact justice in every way possible and
exercise its soundest discretion to prevent a wrong. Although strict
compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal
interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of
the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it is a better rule
that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or
bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches
when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result. Thus: “x x x
procedural rules may, nonetheless, be relaxed for the most
persuasive of reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed. Corollarily, the rule,
which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client, may not be
strictly followed where observance of it would result in the outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interest
of justice so requires.”

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Public Attorney’s Office for petitioners.
556

  Rudy T. Enriquez for respondent.

  
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks
to annul and set aside the November 16, 2011 Decision[1]
and the September 26, 2012 Resolution[2] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02497, which affirmed the
February 28, 2008 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 42, Dumaguete City (RTC-42), in an action for
revival of judgment.
 
The Facts:
Petitioners Rufa A. Rubio, Bartolome Bantoto, Leon
Alagadmo, Rodrigo Delicta, and Adriano Alabata
(petitioners) and respondent Lourdes Alabata (respondent)
were protagonists in an earlier case for annulment of
declaration of heirship and sale, reconveyance and damages
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dumaguete
City (RTC-43). Docketed as Civil Case No. 10153, the case
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

was decided in favor of petitioner. In its October 31, 1995

Decision, the RTC-43 (1) voided the “Declaration of Heirship
and Sale”; (2) ordered respondent to reconvey the entire
subject property to petitioners; (3) dismissed respondent’s
counterclaim; and (4) ordered her to pay moral and
exemplary damages plus the cost of suit.[3]
Not in conformity, respondent elevated the RTC-43 case
to the CA. She, however, later withdrew her appeal which
paved the way for the RTC-43 Decision to lapse into finality.
The CA resolution granting respondent’s motion to
withdraw became final and executory on June 20, 1997. On
August 20, 1997, the

_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 23-28. Penned by Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with
Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles,
concurring.
[2] Id., at pp. 28-29.
[3] Id., at pp. 49-50.

557

Entry of Judgment[4] was issued and recorded in the CA

Book of Entries of Judgments.
Unfortunately, the judgment was not executed.
Petitioners claim that their counsel at the Public Attorney’s
Office, Dumaguete City (PAO-Dumaguete), was never
informed that the entry of judgment had already been
issued.[5] They pointed out that, initially, their case was
handled by the PAO-Dumaguete, but when the RTC-43
decision was appealed to the CA by respondent, their case
was handed over to the Special Appealed Cases Division
(SAC-PAO) at the PAO Central Office in Manila. They
explained that although a copy of the Entry of Judgment
was sent to Atty. Ma. Lourdes Naz, the SAC-PAO lawyer in
charge of their case, she failed to inform petitioners of the
issued entry of judgment before she resigned from PAO
sometime in November 1997. She also failed to inform PAO-
Dumaguete of the said development. When petitioners
followed up with PAO-Dumaguete, it was of the belief that
the appeal of respondent was still pending.[6]
In November 2007, or more than ten (10) years from the
date when the RTC-43 decision was entered in the CA Book
of Entries of Judgments, petitioners found out that the said
decision had become final and executory when their nephew
secured a copy of the Entry of Judgment.
On December 5, 2007, petitioners, through PAO-
Dumaguete, filed an action for revival of judgment which
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

was raffled to RTC-42. On February 28, 2008, after

respondent filed her Answer with Affirmative Defenses,
RTC-42 granted her Motion to Dismiss and ordered
petitioners’ case for revival of judgment dismissed on the
ground of prescription. Petitioners sought reconsideration,
but RTC-42 denied the motion on April 4, 2008.[7]

_______________
[4] Id., at pp. 23-24 and 51.
[5] Id., at p. 24.
[6] Id., at pp. 10-11.
[7] Id.

558

Petitioners then interposed an appeal before the CA. The

latter, on November 16, 2011, rendered its assailed decision
denying petitioners’ appeal and affirming the dismissal by
the RTC-42 of their case for revival of judgment. On
September 26, 2012, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.
 
LONE ISSUE

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN STRICTLY APPLYING

THE PROCEDURAL RULES ON PRESCRIPTION AND
DISMISSING THE CASE BASED ON THE SAID GROUND,
INSPITE [OF] THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS WILL
SUFFER MANIFEST INJUSTICE AND DEPRIVATION OF
THEIR PROPERTY, DUE TO A FAULT NOT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEM.[8]

The Court resolves to grant the petition.

This case falls under Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure which states:

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.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

The prior case before the RTC-43 involved a

reconveyance of a parcel of land in favor of the rightful
owners, the heirs of one Agapito Alagadmo. Petitioners, in
instituting the case against respondent, showed their desire
and resolve to pursue

_______________
[8] Id., at p. 13.

559

and take back what was rightfully theirs. Eventually, they

succeeded in obtaining justice and won back what was
theirs. For their sufferings, the trial court saw it fit to also
assess moral damages and exemplary damages against
respondent.[9]
When the case was elevated by respondent to the CA, the
PAO continued to represent petitioners’ cause. As it was an
appealed case, the matter was referred to, and handled by,
SAC-PAO in Manila.
For reasons known only to her, the respondent withdrew
her appeal, which resulted in the RTC-43 Decision becoming
final and executory. The petitioners, however, never knew of
this because when they followed up the case with PAO-
Dumaguete, they were informed that the appeal was still
pending.[10]
It appears from the records that a copy of the Entry of
Judgment was sent to Atty. Ma. Lourdes Naz, the SAC-PAO
lawyer in charge of their case, who had resigned.
Unfortunately, she failed to inform petitioners of the said
entry of judgment before her resignation in November 1997.
She also failed to inform PAO-Dumaguete of such
development.
It was only in November 2007, when petitioners actually
discovered that their victory was already final after their
nephew secured a copy of the entry of judgment from RTC-
43.
Indeed, both the RTC-42 and the CA were acting in
accordance with the rules and jurisprudence when they
dismissed the action for revival of judgment. Section 6 is
clear. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the
prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right by
mere motion within five (5) years from the date of entry of
judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision
enforced by a motion after the lapse of five (5) years, the said
judgment is reduced to a right of action which must be
enforced by the insti-

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

_______________
 [9] Id., at p. 49.
[10] Id., at pp. 10-11.

560

tution of a complaint in a regular court within ten (10) years

from the time the judgment becomes final.[11]
An action for revival of judgment is governed by Article
1144 (3), Article 1152 of the Civil Code and Section 6, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court. Thus, 

Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within

ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
x x x x
(3) Upon a judgment

 
Article 1152 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 1152. The period for prescription of actions to

demand the fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment
commences from the time the judgment became final.

 
To allow a strict application of the rules, however, would
result in an injustice to petitioners considering (1) that
respondent decided not to contest the RTC-43 decision and
withdrew her appeal and (2) that no fault could be
attributed to petitioners.
Petitioners could not afford to engage the services of a
private counsel and so were represented by the PAO. As has
been repeatedly stated all over the records, PAO, SAC-PAO
in particular, failed them. SAC-PAO never informed them of
the abandonment by respondent of her appeal or of the
entry of judgment. Under the circumstances, they could not
be faulted for their subsequent actions. They went to PAO-
Dumaguete and they were told that the case was still
pending on appeal. Due to their penury and unfamiliarity or
downright ignorance of the rules, they could not be expected
to bypass PAO-

_______________
[11] Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc., G.R. No.
182937, August 8, 2010, 627 SCRA 425, 431.

561

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

Dumaguete and directly verify the status of the case with

the SAC-PAO. They had to trust their lawyer and wait.
No prejudice is caused to respondent because she
withdrew her appeal. Withdrawing her appeal means that
she respected the RTC-43 Decision, which voided the
“Declaration of Heirship and Sale,” dismissed respondent’s
counterclaim, and ordered her to reconvey the entire subject
property to petitioners and to pay moral and exemplary
damages plus the cost of suit. Since the decision became
final and executory, she has been in possession of the
property which rightfully belongs to petitioners. She will
continue to hold on to the property just because of a
technicality.
Due to the peculiarities of this case, the Court, in the
exercise of its equity jurisdiction, relaxes the rules and
decides to allow the action for the revival of judgment filed
by petitioners. The Court believes that it is its bounden duty
to exact justice in every way possible and exercise its
soundest discretion to prevent a wrong. Although strict
compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal
interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict
enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice;
and that it is a better rule that courts, under the principle of
equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of
limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest
wrong or injustice would result.[12] Thus:

“x x x procedural rules may, nonetheless, be relaxed for the most

persuasive of reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed. Corollarily, the rule,
which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client, may not be
strictly followed where observance of it would result in

_______________
[12] Id., at pp. 432-433.

562

the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where

the interest of justice so requires.”[13] 

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The

November 16, 2011 Decision and the September 26, 2012
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02497
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
4/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for appropriate

action.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin** and

Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside. 

Notes.—An action for revival of judgment is a new and

independent action. It is different and distinct from the
original judgment sought to be revived or enforced. (Heirs of
Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, 700 SCRA 746
[2013])
An action for revival of judgment may be filed either “in
the same court where said judgment was rendered or in the
place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any
other place designated by the statutes which treat of the
venue of actions in general.” (Id.)
——o0o——

_______________
[13] Sy v. Local Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 202690, June 5,
2013, 697 SCRA 621.
**  Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A.
Abad, per Special Order No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178e00ba62135614cad003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8