G.R. No. 167281 - Bausa vs. Heirs of Dino

On June 5, 1978, petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a 1.2-hectare parcel of land located in Caricaran, Bacon, Sorsogon. The subject property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 182 registered in the name of petitioner Mary M. Bausa.
The case was initially docketed as Civil Case No. 639 and raffled to Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Sorsogon.
On October 2, 1985, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the petitioners as the rightful owners of the property, ordering:

The declaration of ownership over the property (Lot No. 1346-A as described).
The delivery of possession by ordering the defendant to return the property and not disturb the petitioners’ enjoyment.
The payment of rental (P150.00 per month from the filing date) and attorney’s fees, besides costs.

On November 19, 1987, the petitioners’ motion for execution of the RTC decision was granted, and a writ of execution was issued; however, it was not served against defendant Juan Dino.
An alias writ of execution was later obtained, leading to a Delivery of Possession executed by Deputy Sheriff Edito Buban.
Despite these orders, respondents (private heirs of Juan Dino) refused to sign the Delivery of Possession document and remained in possession of the property.
The petitioners then filed a Petition for Demolition, which was granted, and a writ of demolition was issued on April 10, 1990; however, its implementation was stalled by the respondents’ resistance.

Due to the inability to enforce the RTC decision through the earlier writs and motions, petitioners filed a Complaint for Execution of Decision on January 30, 1998 (Civil Case No. 98-6433), seeking to revive the October 2, 1985 RTC decision.
Following the death of Juan Dino, the complaint was filed against his heirs (the private respondents), who contended that the action was time-barred by prescription.
On May 17, 2000, RTC Branch 51 rendered a decision allowing the revival of the original judgment, and ordered respondents to vacate the premises, remove their houses, and comply with the monetary judgment.

Respondents appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA); the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 67994.
On December 22, 2003, the CA reversed the RTC decision, ruling that the independent action for revival of judgment was time-barred.
A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied on January 11, 2005.
Subsequently, petitioners elevated the case by filing a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging both the CA decision and the resolution denying their execution rights.

Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued its decisions (dated December 22, 2003, and January 11, 2005) that denied petitioners the right to execute or revive the RTC decision for recovery of possession of the registered property.

Whether the CA erred and gravely abused its discretion by disregarding the filing of petitioners’ motions for execution and demolition, which petitioners argued effectively suspended the running of the ten-year prescriptive period for enforcement by independent action.
Whether the CA erred and gravely abused its discretion in holding that the petitioners’ verified complaint for execution was time-barred by prescription.
Whether the CA erred in ruling that the writ of execution served upon private respondents lacked specificity as to the area claimed by petitioners.

The factual determination of whether petitioners diligently pursued every available remedy to effectuate the court-ordered recovery of possession.
Whether the failure of the execution, alias writ of execution, and subsequent demolition writ was due solely to respondents’ resistance rather than any fault attributable to petitioners’ procedural lapses.