Pascual v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Civil Case No. 5203, Wenceslao Pascual sued Pilar Bautista, Primitivo Lovina, Nelly Montilla de Lovina, and Leon Yambao. Pilar Bautista filed a third-party complaint against Mariano R. Flores. Flores was declared in default. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Pascual against Bautista and the Lovinas, and in favor of Bautista as third-party plaintiff against Flores as third-party defendant for P500,000.00 as liquidated damages and P50,000.00 for attorney's fees. Procedural History: All parties except Flores appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the decision. Pilar Bautista and Wenceslao Pascual appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision on April 18, 1956. The decision was entered on June 6, 1957. Bautista attempted to execute the judgment against Flores multiple times, but the writs were returned unsatisfied. On June 24, 1961, the court set aside the writ of execution and order for examination of Flores, citing the lapse of more than ten years since the judgment against Flores was entered. Bautista's petition for relief was denied. On November 21, 1961, Bautista filed an action for revival of the judgment in Civil Case No. 48819. The Petition: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment reviving the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. L-6569 and L-6576, under Article 1144 in connection with Article 1152 of the Civil Code. Mariano R. Flores appealed this decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the action to revive the judgment against the third-party defendant Flores was filed within the prescriptive period. Whether the judgment by default against Flores, as third-party defendant, was final and executory independently of the main case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the appealed decision. The action to revive the judgment was filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the prescriptive period for revival of judgment: The Court held that the action to revive the judgment against Mariano R. Flores was filed on November 21, 1961, which was more than ten years after the judgment by default was rendered on March 7, 1951. The Court clarified that the judgment against Flores was a judgment by default, which was immediately executory and not appealable under the law then in force. Therefore, the ten-year prescriptive period for revival began to run from March 7, 1951. On the issue of the finality of the third-party judgment: The Court distinguished between the main case and the third-party complaint. It found that Pilar Bautista's cause of action as third-party plaintiff against Mariano Flores was based on a contract (paragraph 5 of their agreement) that was independent of the outcome of the principal action filed by Wenceslao Pascual. The stipulation clearly stated that Bautista would be entitled to recover liquidated damages from Flores 'in the event that for any reason whatsoever Nelly Montilla de Lovina shall refuse or fail to execute in favor of the vendor a deed of sale.' Since Mrs. Lovina's refusal was the basis for the judgment against Flores, this claim did not depend on the resolution of Pascual's claim against Bautista. Therefore, the finality of the Supreme Court's decision in the main case on April 18, 1956, did not suspend the prescriptive period for reviving the judgment against Flores, which had already commenced on March 7, 1951.
Main Doctrine
An action to revive a judgment by default, which is immediately executory and not appealable, must be filed within ten years from the date it became final and executory. The finality of the main case does not suspend the prescriptive period for the revival of the third-party judgment if the third-party claim is independent of the main claim.