Arnado v. Court of First Instance-Cebu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marcelino Arnado filed a case against his mother, Marcela Arrogancia, for ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The lower court ruled in favor of Marcela Arrogancia, declaring her the sole owner and ordering Marcelino to pay attorney's fees. Marcelino appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The judgment was executed. Procedural History: Eight years after the judgment became final and executory, private respondents filed a motion for an alias writ of execution. They alleged that Marcelino's wife had entered the property, built a house, and refused to vacate despite demands. The Petition: The respondent court issued an order directing the sheriff to turn over physical possession of the property and remove the house built by Marcelino's wife. Marcelino (represented by his heirs) filed a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside this order, arguing it was issued without jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing an order for execution and demolition eight years after the judgment had become final and executory. Whether the intrusion of Marcelino's wife into the property after the execution of the judgment between Marcelino and his mother is a matter that can be resolved through an alias writ of execution in the original case.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The order of the respondent court dated November 23, 1973, in Civil Case No. R-5372 of the CFI of Cebu, is annulled and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the order of the respondent court dated November 23, 1973, directing the demolition of the house and the turnover of physical possession of the property, was patently null and void as having been issued without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the judgment between Marcelino and his mother had already been executed and was a closed file. The subsequent intrusion by Marcelino's wife was a matter entirely separate from the original litigation. Furthermore, the order was issued more than eight (8) years after the judgment had become final and executory. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from its entry or finality. After the lapse of this period, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, the judgment can only be enforced by an independent action to revive the judgment. The private respondents should have filed a separate action for this purpose. On Issue 2: The Court held that the intrusion of Marcelino's wife onto the land after the original judgment was a matter totally alien from that litigated between Marcelino and his mother. To order the demolition of the house built by Marcelino's wife without giving her an opportunity to plead her case would be illegal. Moreover, with the death of Marcela Arrogancia, the petitioners (heirs of Marcelino) became co-owners of the land, and thus could not be summarily evicted therefrom through an execution order in the original case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a judgment may be executed by motion within five (5) years from its entry or finality. Beyond this period, enforcement must be through an independent action to revive the judgment. An order for execution issued after the lapse of the five-year period without such revival action is considered null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction.