G.R. No. L-15467 - Lancita vs. Magbanua

On March 21, 1951, respondents Gonzalo Magbanua and Alfredo Magbanua filed a complaint for Forcible Entry in Civil Case No. 7 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Buluan, Cotabato, against petitioners Jesus Lancita, et al.
On July 17, 1951, the Court rendered a judgment ordering:

The defendants (petitioners) to vacate the land in question.
Payment of damages amounting to TWO hundred (P200.00) pesos, jointly and severally.
Payment of the costs.

The judgment was rendered on the ground that the plaintiffs had prior physical possession of the land and that the defendants had repeatedly postponed the trial.

On August 21, 1951, the Lancitas filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the July 17, 1951 judgment.
On the same day, without waiting for the motion’s resolution, a Notice of Appeal was filed; however, it was abandoned due to the failure to file the requisite bond.
On October 24, 1951, the Justice of the Peace Court granted the motion for reconsideration and issued an order to stay the original decision.
On November 27, 1951, the Court promulgated an Order reviving the July 17, 1951 judgment with the following reasoning:

On November 26, 1956, counsel for respondent Magbanua filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution citing the provincial sheriff’s repeated failure to eject the petitioners from the premises.
A written opposition was filed by the petitioners, asserting:

The judgment of July 17, 1951 could not be executed by mere motion because the five-year period for such execution had expired.
The issuance of the writ would cause irreparable damage to the petitioners and third parties.

Despite the opposition, the Justice of the Peace Court issued the alias writ of execution on March 27, 1957.

On April 22, 1957, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with Injunction Ex-Parte and for Damages amounting to P2,000.00 before the Court of First Instance of Cotabato.
The petition alleged that:

The respondent Justice of the Peace Court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
There was grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the motion for execution.
The alias writ of execution was issued outside the statutory five-year prescriptive period.

The finality of the original judgment was achieved only on November 27, 1951, after the motion for reconsideration was resolved.
The execution motion and issuance of alias writ were within the prescribed period, commencing either from November 27, 1951, or from July 17, 1951, with the period effectively suspended due to delays in prior execution attempts.
The alias writ was valid and remained enforceable.

Petitioners’ subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s Order was denied, leading to the direct appeal by the respondents.

Whether the alias writ of execution issued on March 27, 1957, pursuant to the motion filed on November 26, 1956, was effected within the five-year prescriptive period applicable to execution of judgment by mere motion.
Whether the proper date for computing the prescriptive period for execution should be taken as the date of the original judgment (July 17, 1951) or the date the judgment became final (November 27, 1951) after resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
Whether the existence of delays and stays—stemming from the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and the repeated failure of the provincial sheriff to execute the judgment—would suspend or extend the running of the prescriptive period.