Baez Jr.

v Conepcion Banez moved for the dismissal alleging that action

Action to revive judgment; prescribes in 10
yrs. (Art 1144)
Defense of prescription shall show in the
face of the complaint that the period to
revive the action had already lapsed.
Ramos discovered that a parcel of land that he had
adjudicated solely to himself upon his mothers
death had been earlier transferred by his mother to
Asuncion who sold it to Gomez.
was barred by prescription and that he was not a
party-in-interest.
RTC reversed itself and held that the filing of the
action for specific performance filed on 1995 had
interrupted the prescriptive period pursuant to Art
1155 of the NCC ( prescription is interrupted when
filed in court).
ISSUE: WON Estate of Gomez id barred by
prescription to bring action of revival of judgment?

Ramos alleged that Gomez induced him to sell the HELD: Art 1144 of the CC requires that an action
property to Gomez on the understanding that to revive a judgment must be brought before it is
Gomez would settle Ramos obligation to 3 other barred by prescription which is 10 yrs from the
persons. Ramos filed an action against Gomez accrual of right of action. Such defense could not be
seeking rescission of their contract of sale and the determined considering that the complaint did not
payment of damages. show on its face that the period to bring the action
to revive had already lapsed.
OCTOBER 9, 1990 Ramos and Gomez entered into
a Compromise agreement to finally terminate the
case. It was agreed that Gomez would cause the
registration of the Deed of Absolute sale executed
by Ramos in his favor. Ramos was stipulated to pay
his loan obligations to Gomez. RTC approved.

Gomez died and was survived by his heirs.

JULY 6, 1995. The Estate of Gomez sued Ramos

for specific performance when he failed to cause the
registration of the deed of absolute sale pursuant to
the compromise agreement. Valenzuela RTC
dismissed the case on the ground of improper venue
(subj property is located in Bulacan) and because
the proper recourse was to enforce the judgment by
Compromise Agreement rendered on Oct 9, 1990
through a motion for execution.

SEPT 20, 2002. Estate of Gomez commenced action

to revive the judgment by compromise.

Petitioner Banez who was counsel of Ramos was

impleaded as a party-defendant because of his
having guaranteed the performance by Ramos of his
obligation and for having actively participated in the
transaction.