Title
Arambulo vs. Court of 1st Instance of Laguna
Case
G.R. No. 31814
Decision Date
Aug 9, 1929
A 1914 judgment ordered Felix Arambulo to vacate land. A 1915 motion for execution was filed but not acted upon. In 1929, another motion was filed, but the court lacked jurisdiction as the five-year prescriptive period had lapsed, rendering the 1929 order void.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 31814)

Facts:

  1. Judgment in Civil Case No. 1725:
    On November 27, 1914, the Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered a judgment in favor of the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, against Felix Arambulo, declaring him in default and ordering him to vacate the land in question. This judgment became final and subject to execution.

  2. Motion for Execution in 1915:
    On March 24, 1915, the provincial fiscal of Laguna, acting on behalf of the municipality of Santa Rosa, filed a motion in the court praying for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. However, no writ of execution was issued at that time.

  3. Second Motion for Execution in 1929:
    On May 7, 1929, the provincial fiscal filed another motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. The vacation judge, Honorable Mariano A. Albert, ruled on May 16, 1929, that the period of prescription had been interrupted by the filing of the 1915 motion and ordered the issuance of the writ of execution.

  4. Petition for Certiorari:
    Felix Arambulo filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the May 16, 1929, order, arguing that the court no longer had jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution after the lapse of the five-year prescriptive period under Section 443 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure).

Issue:

  1. Whether the filing of the motion for execution on March 24, 1915, interrupted the five-year prescriptive period for the issuance of a writ of execution under Section 443 of Act No. 190.
  2. Whether the court retained jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution on May 16, 1929, after the lapse of the five-year period.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Felix Arambulo, declaring the order of May 16, 1929, null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the mere filing of a motion for execution without taking the necessary steps to obtain the writ does not interrupt the five-year prescriptive period. Since the writ of execution was issued beyond the five-year period, the court no longer had jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.

Ratio:

  1. Prescriptive Period for Execution:
    Under Section 443 of Act No. 190, a party in whose favor a judgment is rendered may "have" a writ of execution issued within five years after the entry of the judgment. The term "have" implies obtaining or securing the writ, not merely praying for it.

  2. Interruption of Prescription:
    The mere filing of a motion for execution does not interrupt the five-year prescriptive period unless the necessary steps are taken to obtain the writ. In this case, the municipality of Santa Rosa only prayed for the writ in 1915 but did not take further action until 1929, which was beyond the five-year period.

  3. Jurisdiction After Prescriptive Period:
    Once the five-year period has lapsed, the court loses jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution. Therefore, the order issued on May 16, 1929, was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.