Facts:

Felix Arambulo filed a petition for a writ of certiorari against the Court of First Instance of Laguna and the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, on August 9, 1929. The petition sought to annul a decree issued by the respondent court on May 16, 1929, which ordered the execution of a judgment rendered on November 27, 1914, in civil case No. 1725. In this case, the Municipality of Santa Rosa was the plaintiff, and Arambulo was the defendant. The court had declared Arambulo in default and ordered him to vacate the disputed land. After the judgment became final, the provincial fiscal of Laguna, representing the municipality, filed a motion on March 24, 1915, requesting a writ of execution for the judgment. However, no writ was issued at that time. On May 7, 1929, the provincial fiscal filed another motion for the same purpose, which led to the May 16 order from Judge Mariano A. Albert, stating that the period of prescription had been interr...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Felix Arambulo, the petitioner, was sued in a civil case (No. 1725) by the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, which was represented by its provincial fiscal.
• The respondent Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered judgment on November 27, 1914, declaring Arambulo in default and ordering him to vacate the disputed land.

Proceedings on the Judgment Execution

• After the judgment became final and was subject to execution, the provincial fiscal, acting on behalf of the municipality, filed a motion on March 24, 1915, requesting the issuance of a writ of execution by the provincial sheriff.
• No writ of execution was issued at that time despite the prayer for execution.

Subsequent Motion and Controversial Order

• The provincial fiscal filed another motion on May 7, 1929, again praying for the issuance of a writ of execution for the judgment rendered in 1914.
• The Honorable Mariano A. Albert, the vacation judge, passed an order on May 16, 1929, declaring that the period of prescription had been "interrupted" by the earlier filing on March 24, 1915, and ordered the issuance of the writ of execution in favor of the municipality, including costs of the action.

Petition for Certiorari

• Felix Arambulo filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to annul the May 16, 1929, order that granted the motion for execution.
• The petition contended that the appellate order was issued beyond the statutory period provided by law.

Issue:

Whether the mere filing of a motion praying for a writ of execution—without actually taking the necessary steps to procure the execution—constitutes an interruption of the five-year period fixed by Section 443 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure).

• Does the act of "praying for" a writ equate to "obtaining" or "securing" it, as the law requires for interruption of the period?
• Is the execution of a judgment validly enforceable if the writ is issued beyond the five-year period stipulated by law?

• Whether the order issued on May 16, 1929, by the vacation judge was rendered within the jurisdiction of the court despite the substantial delay in taking effective steps to obtain the writ.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)