Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

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 of restitution or
reparation of damages as equity and justice
may warrant under the circumstances. (5a)
What will happen if the judgment is reversed or annulled?

■ Restitution or reparation of damages may be ordered by


the trial court in the event of a reversal of the judgment.

■ Restitution or other relief may also be ordered in a


judgment of annulment.
■ On reversal, the property itself must be returned to the judgment debtor,
if the same is still in the possession of the judgment creditor, plus
compensation to the former for the deprivation and use of the property.
This can be effected by motion to the trial court.

■ If restitution is not possible, then compensation should be made as


follows:
■ a. If the purchaser at the public auction was the judgment creditor, he
must pay the full value of the property at the time of its seizure, plus
interest thereon;
■ b. If the purchaser at public auction was a third person, the judgment
creditor must pay the judgment debtor the amount realized from the
sale of said property at the sheriffs sale, with interest thereon; and
■ c. If the judgment award was reduced on appeal, the judgment creditor
must return to the judgment debtor only the excess which he received
over and above that to which he is entitled under the final judgment,
with interest on such excess.
Section 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)
■ To execute a judgment, the prevailing party must file a motion for execution
before the same court which rendered the judgment.

■ A judgment creditor has two modes in enforcing the court’s judgment:


1.) Execution by motion – within 5 years from the date of entry of judgment.
2.) Execution by an independent action – if the 5 year period to execute by motion
has elapsed with no motion having been filed and before it is barred by the statute
of limitations. According to Art. 1144 of the Civil Code, a judgment may be
enforced only within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues.
Execution by motion
■ The prevailing party shall ask the court to issue a writ of execution by simply
filing a motion in the same case.
■ Lifetime of a wit of execution: The writ shall continue in effect during the
period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. Hence, the
writ is enforceable within the five-year period from entry of judgment.
■ For execution by motion to be valid, the judgment creditor must ensure the
accomplishment of two acts within the five-year prescriptive period. These
are:
a) the filing of the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution; and
b) the court’s actual issuance of the writ.
What will happen if the judgment was not executed within the
5-year period?
■ If the judgment was not executed within the 5-year period, the judgment has
become dormant.
■ Dormant judgment: is a judgment not satisfied or barred by lapse of time
but temporarily inoperative as far as the right to issue execution is concerned. It
is one that was not executed within the 5-year period.
■ Such a judgment has validity as a still subsisting debt of the judgment debtor.
And when a judgment has been dormant it cannot be enforced, until it has
been duly revived by an action on the judgment instituted in regular form, by
complaint, as other actions are instituted.
Execution by independent action
■ Execution by independent action must be filed before it is barred by the
statute of limitations. According to Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, a
judgment may be enforced only within ten (10) years.
■ The ten-year period commences to run from the finality of the judgment
which is also deemed to be the date of its entry.
■ 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.
■ The 5 & 10 year periods do not apply to:
a) special proceedings, such as land registration and cadastral cases,
wherein the right to ask for a writ of possession does not prescribe;
b) judgments for support which do not become dormant and which can
always be executed by motion despite lapse of the five-year period because the
obligation is a continuing one and the court never loses jurisdiction to enforce
the same.
G.R. No. 171626 August 6, 2014
OLONGAPO CITY v. SUBIC WATER AND SEWERAGE CO., INC.,

■ Execution by motion is only available within the five-year period from entry of
judgment.
■ Under Rule 39, Section 6, a judgment creditor has two modes in enforcing the
court’s judgment. Execution may be either through motion or an independent action.
■ These two modes of execution are available depending on the timing when the
judgment creditor invoked its right to enforce the court’s judgment.
■ Execution by motion is only available if the enforcement of the judgment was sought
within five (5) years from the date of its entry. On the other hand, execution by
independent action is mandatory if the five-year prescriptive period for execution by
motion had already elapsed. However, for execution by independent action to
prosper – the Rules impose another limitation – the action must be filed before it is
barred by the statute of limitations which, under the Civil Code, is ten (10) years
from the finality of the judgment.
G.R. No. L-20236 July 30, 1965
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOAQUIN BONDOC
FACTS: On June 29, 1949 the Philippine National Bank obtained a judgment in
Civil Case No. 8040 from the Court of First Instance against Joaquin M. Bondoc for
payment of sum of money. However, this judgment was never executed.

After five years and upon the instance of the Philippine National Bank said
judgment was revived in Civil Case No. 30663 on February 20, 1957 where the Court of
First Instance of Manila condemned Joaquin M. Bondoc to pay the PNB. Neither was
this judgment enforced during the five years thereafter.
But on June 7, 1962 (after 13 years) the PNB instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Manila Civil Case No. 50601 for the enforcement of the judgment
rendered in Civil Case No. 30663. On motion of defendant, however, the complaint
for revival of judgment was dismissed on grounds of prescription and lack of cause
of action.

The lower court held that the right to revive the judgment has prescribed
inasmuch as more than ten years had elapsed since it was first rendered on June 29,
1949. It further ruled that the Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190) or the New Civil
Code does not provide for the revival of a revived judgment. Plaintiff has appealed
from the order of dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether or not a revived judgment may itself be revived.

RULING: YES.

Section 6 of Rule 39 states:

SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. — A judgment may be executed on


motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and
executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitation, a
judgment may be enforced by action.

A judgment rendered on a complaint for the revival of a previous judgment is a new


judgment and the rights of the plaintiff rest on the new judgment not on the previous one.
Precisely, the purpose of the revival of a judgment is 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 limitations sets in.
Section 6 aforementioned requires that the judgment sought to be revived is
not bared by prescription. Under Article 1144(3) of the New Civil Code the right to
enforce a judgment prescribes in ten years counted from the date said judgment
becomes final.

A judgment is revived only when the same cannot be enforced by motion,


that is, after five years from the time it becomes final. A revived judgment can be
enforced by motion within five years from its finality. After said five years, how may
the revived judgment be enforced? Appellee contends that by that time ten years
or more would have elapsed since the first judgment becomes final, so that an
action to enforce said judgment would then be barred by the statute of limitations.
Appellee's theory relates the period of prescription to the date the original
judgment became final. Such a stand is inconsistent with the accepted view that a
judgment reviving a previous one is a new and different judgment.

The source of Section 6 aforecited is Section 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure
which in turn was derived from the Code of Civil Procedure of California. The rule followed
in California in this regard is that a proceeding by separate ordinary action to revive a
judgment is a new action rather than a continuation of the old, and results in a new
judgment constituting a new cause of action, upon which a new period of limitations
begins to run.

The judgment in Civil Case No. 30663, which provided the cause of action in the
case at bar, was rendered on February 20, 1957 and became final in the same year.
Pursuant to Article 1144(3) of the New Civil Code the action upon such judgment must be
brought within ten years from 1957 or until 1967. The instant case instituted in the court a
quo on June 7, 1962 is well within the prescriptive period.
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

5 yrs by motion 5 yrs by independent action 5 yrs by motion 5 yrs by independent action

10 yrs 10yrs
Art 1144, Civil Code last sentence of Sec 6