Decena v. Angeles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Marcela Sabulao Vda. de Decena is the mother of Joaquin Decena, the defendant in Civil Case No. Q-5123, an ejectment case filed by People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC). Joaquin Decena admitted PHHC's ownership of the lot but claimed priority to purchase. The Court of First Instance (CFI) rendered a decision on May 15, 1961, ordering Joaquin Decena to vacate the premises, remove his house, and pay monthly rentals. Procedural History: The judgment became final on July 14, 1961. PHHC moved for a writ of execution on March 31, 1963, which was granted on March 13, 1964. The writ was returned unsatisfied. On June 2, 1967, PHHC moved for a demolition order, which was granted on June 15, 1967, giving Joaquin Decena 10 days to vacate. Joaquin Decena failed to comply. Petitioner Marcela Sabulao Vda. de Decena moved to quash the demolition order, claiming she was not a party to the case and the order was void against her. This motion was denied. PHHC again moved for a demolition order on June 19, 1968, alleging that Joaquin Decena's house was demolished on July 20, 1967, but petitioner had rebuilt or claimed her house was still standing and obtained extensions to vacate. The CFI granted this second demolition order on June 24, 1968. Petitioner filed a manifestation averring the house remaining was hers and moved to set aside the order, pending her separate case (Civil Case No. Q-11316) for cancellation of title. She also sought a status quo order, which was granted temporarily until July 20, 1968. The judge left the country before this date, prompting petitioner to file the instant special civil action. The Petition: Petitioner prayed for the Court to desist from executing the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-5123, arguing that more than five years had elapsed since its finality when the demolition order was issued, and she was not impleaded in the original case. She also sought an injunction against the demolition order, a declaration of nullity of the proceedings against her, and permanent injunctions.
Issue(s)
Whether the demolition order issued on June 24, 1968, is valid despite the lapse of more than five years from the finality of the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-5123. Whether the petitioner, not having been impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-5123, can be subjected to its execution and demolition orders.
Ruling
The Court granted the writ prayed for, set aside the demolition order of June 24, 1968, and enjoined the respondents from further executing the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-5123 until it is revived in accordance with law. Costs were assessed against PHHC.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the demolition order and the lapse of five years: The Court held that the decision in Civil Case No. Q-5123 became final on July 14, 1961. By June 24, 1968, when the second demolition order was issued, more than five years had elapsed since the finality of the judgment. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the New Rules of Court, a dormant judgment can no longer be executed by mere motion; a new action to revive the judgment is required. The Court a quo had lost its jurisdiction to execute the dormant judgment upon a mere motion. The failure to object to an execution issued after five years does not validate it, as jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by the parties' consent. The ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1144(3) of the New Civil Code for reviving a judgment was not applicable here as the execution was sought by motion, not by a new action for revival. On the petitioner's status as a party: While the Court did not delve into the petitioner's rights over the lot, it noted that the issue of her rights was pending in another case. However, the primary ground for setting aside the demolition order was the lapse of the five-year period for execution by motion. The fact that she was not impleaded in the original case would have been a strong argument had the execution been timely sought, but the jurisdictional defect of executing a dormant judgment by motion rendered the order void regardless of her party status in the original suit.
Main Doctrine
A demolition order issued to enforce a judgment that has become dormant for more than five years from its finality is void, as the court a quo has lost jurisdiction to execute the judgment upon a mere motion. The judgment must be revived through a new action.