Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

Sixteenth (16 th ) Division

SPOUSES ROBINSON AND CA-G.R. CV No. 110453

EDITHA HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Members:
- versus - BARRIOS, M.M.,
Chairperson,
LEGASPI, G.F.D., and
WIL V. PATROCINIO, represented ONG, W.S., JJ.
by his attorney-in-fact, WIL REY
PATROCINIO,
Defendant-Appellee. Promulgated:
JANUARY 30 2020
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
LEGASPI, G. F. D., J.:

Before Us is an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court assailing

the 22 September 2017 Order1 (1st assailed Order) and the 12 December
2017 Order2 (2nd assailed Order) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga
City, Branch 193 in Civil Case No. 2016-0052.

The Antecedent Facts

This appeal stemmed from a complaint 4 for revival of judgment filed

on April 18, 2016 by plaintiffs-appellants Spouses Robinson and Editha
Hernandez (plaintiffs-appellants) against defendant-appellee Wil V.
Patrocinio (defendant-appellee) before the RTC-Branch 19 of Naga City.
Defendant-appellee is represented in this case by his attorney-in-fact, Wil
Rey Patrocinio, as evidenced by a Special Power of Attorney 5 dated June 1,
2012.

Plaintiffs-appellants alleged that on March 3, 2003, the RTC, Branch

1 Rollo, pp. 40-48; issued by Judge Rosita L. Lalwani.
2 Rollo, pp. 49-50;
3 RTC-Branch 19.
4 Records, pp. 1-6.
5 Records, pp. 7-8.
CA-G.R. CV No. 110453
Decision Page 2 of 7

23 (RTC-Branch 23) of Naga City rendered a Decision 6 (2003 Decision) in

their favor and against defendant-appellee in Civil Case No. 95-3472 for
specific performance.

The dispositive portion of the 2003 Decision is quoted below, as

follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Ordering defendant Wil Patrocinio to cause the transfer of title of

one-fourth (¼) of the property covered by OCT No. 284 of the Registry of
Deeds of Naga City, or one-half (½) of the area of Lot 145-B of
subdivision plan Psd-05-011801 covered by the same OCT No. 284 fr5om
the name of his parents, spouses Manuel Patrocinio Sr., and Trinidad
Verdejo to his name;
2. Ordering defendant Wil Patrocinio to execute a deed of absolute
sale over his one-fourth (1/4) share of the property covered by OCT No.
284, or one half (1/2) of the area of Lot 145-B of subdivision plan Psd-
05-011801 covered by the same OCT No. 284, in favor of the plaintiff
spouses Robinson Mendoza Hernandez and Editha Chua Hernandez,
upon payment by the latter to defendant Wil Patrocinio, the remaining
balance of the value of the one-fourth (1/4) of the said property; and
3. No pronouncement as to any form of damages suffered by either
parties.

SO ORDERED.”7

On November 18, 2003, plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion for the

issuance of a writ of execution. However, the RTC-Branch 23 denied their
motion in an Order8 dated January 19, 2004. The RTC-Branch 23 explained
in the Order that the 2003 Decision had not yet become final with regard to
defendant-appellee based on the registry return card showing that the mail
containing the 2003 Decision was unclaimed.

On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs-appellants filed a complaint9 for revival

of judgment before the RTC-Branch 19 of Naga City, docketed as Civil
Case No. 2012-0086. The RTC-Branch 19 initially ruled in favor of
plaintiffs-appellants in its Order10 dated March 12, 2015, holding that the
2003 Decision became final and executory on February 5, 2004 after
defendant-appellee failed to perfect his appeal after receipt of the decision
on January 21, 2004.

Defendant-appellee filed a motion for reconsideration11 dated April 7,

2015, claiming that the 2003 Decision has not yet attained finality. In the
6 Records, pp. 9-13.
7 Records, pp. 12-13.
8 Records, p. 24.
9 Records, pp. 14-16.
10 See p. 3 of appellee's brief, Rollo, p. 57.
11 Records, pp. 18-22.
CA-G.R. CV No. 110453
Decision Page 3 of 7

motion, defendant-appellee attached as proof a copy of the envelope 12

containing the 2003 Decision with a notation “RTS: UNCLAIMED” and the
registry receipt13 still stapled in the envelope.

The RTC-Branch 19 granted defendant-appellee's motion in an Order14

dated August 2, 2015 and dismissed plaintiffs-appellants' complaint for
revival of judgment. Plaintiffs-appellants did not appeal the Order dated
August 2, 2015. The same became final and executory based on an entry of
judgment15 dated April 7, 2016.

On March 15, 2016, Atty. Sheena Ester A. Gacer (Atty. Gacer), Clerk
of Court of RTC-Branch 23, issued a certificate of finality 16, attesting that
the 2003 Decision became final and executory on February 5, 2004 after
defendant-appellee received the same on January 21, 2004. On the basis
thereof, plaintiffs-appellants filed a second complaint for revival of
judgment which is the subject of this present appeal.

In his answer with affirmative defenses/motion to dismiss and

counter-claim17 dated January 27, 2017, defendant-appellee invoked res
judicata, claiming that the second complaint is now barred by prior
judgment due to the finality of the Order dated August 2, 2015.

On April 17, 2017, a hearing on defendant-appellee's affirmative

defenses was conducted.18 During the hearing, the counsel for defendant-
appellee moved for the issuance of a subpoena to the clerks of court of
RTC-Branch 19 and RTC-Branch 23 to settle the issue of whether defendant-
appellee received the 2003 Decision. The motion was granted in open court.

On May 17, 2017, the testimony of Atty. Jesusa I. Mampo, Clerk of

Court of RTC-Branch 19, was dispensed with after the parties' counsels
entered into stipulation of facts.19 Only Atty. Gacer took the witness stand.

Atty. Gacer testified that based on the records, defendant-appellee

received on January 21, 2004 both the Order dated January 21, 2004 and the
2003 Decision. According to her, her basis was the registry return receipt
found in page 204 of the records. She added that defendant-appellee's
counsel in the case for specific performance, Atty. Nelson Paraiso (Atty.
Paraiso), received the 2003 Decision on March 13, 2003.20

12 Records, p. 23.
13 Id.
14 Records, p. 17.
15 Records, p. 114.
16 Records, pp. 25-26.
17 Records, pp. 109-113.
18 See Order dated April 17, 2017, Records, pp. 121-122.
19 See Order dated May 22, 2017, Records, p. 127.
20 T.S.N. dated May 22, 2017, pp. 10-11.
CA-G.R. CV No. 110453
Decision Page 4 of 7

On September 22, 2017, the RTC rendered the 1 st assailed Order,

dismissing the second complaint for revival of judgment on the ground of
res judicata. The dispositive portion of the 1st assailed Order reads:

“WHEREFORE, prescinding from all the foregoing

considerations, the above-entitled case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”21

Plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration 22 dated October

13, 2017 which was denied in the 2nd assailed Order.

Aggrieved, plaintiffs-appellants filed a notice of appeal23 dated

January 17, 2018 which was given due course by the RTC in an Order24
dated January 23, 2018.

Assignment of Errors

In their brief25 before this Court, plaintiffs-appellants raise the

following assignment of errors on the part of the RTC:

“I.

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 19 OF NAGA CITY

ERRED IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA
WITH RESPECT TO CIVIL CASE NO. 2016-0052 AND CASE NO.
2012-0086.

II.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE

DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 95-3475 HAS ATTAINED
FINALITY WITH RESPECT TO APPELLEE.”26

Our Ruling

We discuss first the issue on whether or not the 2003 Decision has
attained finality with regard to defendant-appellee.

We answer in the affirmative.

In the present case, records show that defendant-appellee's counsel in

the case for specific performance, Atty. Paraiso, had received the 2003
21 Rollo, p. 48.
22 Records, pp. 153-158.
23 Records, pp. 169-170.
24 Records, p. 175.
25 Rollo, pp. 30-45.
26 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
CA-G.R. CV No. 110453
Decision Page 5 of 7

Decision as testified to by Atty. Gacer. Her testimony that Atty. Paraiso

received the 2003 Decision on March 13, 2003 was not disputed.

Moreover, based on the Registry Return Receipt No. 5427, a copy of

the 2003 Decision was mailed to Atty. Paraiso. Although the receipt did not
indicate whether he received the 2003 Decision, it is presumed that a letter
duly directed and mailed was received in the ordinary course of mail.28 In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that Atty. Paraiso
received the 2003 Decision.

The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an action in

court, notices of all kinds including motions, pleadings and orders must be
served on the counsel. And notice to such counsel is notice to the client. 29 In
cases where service was made on the counsel of record at his given address,
notice sent to petitioner himself/herself is not even necessary. 30 Because
defendant-appellee was represented by a counsel in the case for specific
performance, notice to his counsel is considered notice to him as well.

Due to Atty. Paraiso's receipt of the 2003 Decision and defendant-

appellee's failure to appeal the same, said Decision attained finality with
respect to defendant-appellee.

However, We deny the appeal by reason that prescription has barred

the revival of the 2003 Decision.

It is well-settled that judgments or orders become final and executory

by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The finality of a
judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal
if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is
filed. The court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same
becomes final by operation of law.31

As mentioned above, the 2003 Decision became final on March 13,

2003. There was no need for the court to issue an entry of judgment or
certificate of finality to attest to its finality. It became final by operation of
law on said date.

The second complaint for revival of the 2003 Decision was filed on
April 18, 2016 or thirteen (13) years after the 2003 Decision became final.

Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

27 Records, p. 160.
28 Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence.
29 See GCP-Manny Transport Services Inc. vs. Hon. Principe, et al., G.R. No. 141484, November 11,
2005.
30 Id.
31 Philippine Savings Bank vs. Papa, G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018.
CA-G.R. CV No. 110453
Decision Page 6 of 7

“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.”

In relation to this, Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code provide
the pertinent period of prescription and reckoning point with regard to an
action for revival of judgment, to wit:

“ART. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten

years from the time the right of action accrues:

• (1) Upon a written contract;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
xxx

“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.”

Based on the foregoing provisions, an action to revive a judgment

must be brought within ten (10) years from the time it becomes final. In the
present case, the second complaint for revival of the 2003 Decision was filed
thirteen (13) years after its finality. Due to the lapse of the prescriptive
period to file an action for the revival of judgment, the 2003 Decision can no
longer be enforced.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CV No. 110453
Decision Page 7 of 7

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MANUEL M. BARRIOS
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
WALTER S. ONG
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MANUEL M. BARRIOS
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixteenth Division