Dela Rosa v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Fernandez and his brother Ignacio entered into a partnership to operate a bakery. Jose contributed P15,000.00, while Ignacio contributed P5,000.00 and the use of his lot. Upon Ignacio's death, his widow, Concepcion de la Rosa, excluded Jose from the bakery's management. Jose caused the articles of partnership to be annotated on the land title. Jose demanded the return of his investment, but Concepcion ignored it and sold the bakery to Alberto Lopez for P17,000.00. Procedural History: Jose Fernandez filed an action for the recovery of his share in the proceeds of the sale. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Jose, ordering Concepcion to account for the proceeds and pay Jose two-thirds thereof (P11,335.00) plus attorney's fees. The judgment became executory, and a writ of execution was issued but could not be enforced as Concepcion had absconded. Jose then moved for the attachment of the bakery assets and the appointment of a receiver. Flaviano Rosales was appointed receiver but incurred significant losses. Jose Fernandez was then appointed receiver. After Jose Fernandez's death, his heirs were substituted. The heirs sought an alias writ of execution. Concepcion de la Rosa opposed, arguing the remedy was barred by the five-year period for execution by motion. The trial court granted the alias writ, citing the peculiar circumstances and the fact that Jose had not slept on his rights. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Concepcion de la Rosa filed a petition for review, challenging the trial court's order to issue an alias writ of execution, contending it was issued beyond the five-year period prescribed by the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of an alias writ of execution was barred by the five-year period prescribed for execution by motion. Whether the trial court committed reversible error or gravely abused its discretion in ordering the issuance of the alias writ of execution, considering the circumstances that tolled the period and the death of the judgment creditor.
Ruling
The petition for review is DENIED, and the challenged Orders are AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May 24, 1977, is hereby LIFTED AND SET ASIDE. Costs against private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the five-year period for execution by motion: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the five-year period for executing a judgment by motion was effectively stayed or tolled by circumstances beyond the control of the judgment creditor, Jose Fernandez. These circumstances included Concepcion de la Rosa's abscondment and disappearance for approximately four years, which prevented the enforcement of the original writ of execution. Furthermore, the property of the partnership was placed under custodia legis through the attachment and receivership orders, which also interrupted the normal course of execution. The Court emphasized that Jose Fernandez had consistently pursued his rights and had not slept on them, as evidenced by his persistent motions for execution and his actions to preserve the partnership's assets. On the trial court's discretion to issue the alias writ: The Court found that the trial court did not commit reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of the alias writ of execution. The "peculiar circumstances" of the case, as articulated by the trial court, justified the departure from the strict application of the five-year rule. The Court cited Lancita v. Magbanua, which held that the time during which execution is stayed, whether by agreement, injunction, appeal, death of a party, or otherwise, should not be included in the computation of the five-year period. The death of Jose Fernandez, the judgment creditor, was also considered a factor that effectively stayed the period. The Court reiterated that the statute of limitations is not intended to penalize those who wish to act but are prevented from doing so by causes beyond their control. Therefore, the issuance of the alias writ was deemed a proper remedy to ensure the satisfaction of the judgment, given the prolonged delays and obstacles encountered by the judgment creditor.
Main Doctrine
The five-year period for executing a judgment by motion is tolled by circumstances that prevent or delay execution, such as the debtor's abscondence, the death of a party, or the property being under custodia legis, provided the judgment creditor has not slept on his rights.