G.R. No. L-28301 - Philippine National Bank vs. Deloso

On January 25, 1951, the Court rendered a judgment in Civil Case No. 1044 ordering defendants Juan Deloso, Francisco Imperial, and Magno Jamito to pay Philippine National Bank (PNB) the sum of P600.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The judgment was not executed within the prescribed five-year period from its entry or finality.

On June 28, 1960, PNB filed an action (Civil Case No. 4953) for the revival of the judgment against the same set of defendants.
On September 30, 1964, Civil Case No. 4953 was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction, because the case fell within the original jurisdiction of the City Court of Naga under Republic Act No. 2613.

On January 11, 1965, PNB filed a similar action for revival of the judgment in the City Court of Naga.
On August 18, 1966, on motion by the defendants, the City Court of Naga dismissed the case on the ground that the action was barred by prescription, as more than ten years had elapsed from the date the judgment in Civil Case No. 1044 became final.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by PNB but was denied.

PNB appealed the dismissal order to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.
The Court of First Instance affirmed the dismissal, finding that the judgment had been final and executory for over 13 years at the time of the subsequent filing, thus barring the revival action under Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code.
A motion for reconsideration was again filed by PNB with no success.

PNB argued that the complaint in Civil Case No. 4953 should be treated as an extrajudicial demand under Article 1155 of the Civil Code, which would have interrupted the running of the ten-year prescriptive period.
PNB contended that, even if not interrupting prescription, the action was timely since the ten-year period should commence only after the expiration of the five-year period allowed for enforcement by motion under Rule 39.

Whether the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 4953 constitutes a written extrajudicial demand under Article 1155 of the Civil Code that would interrupt the running of the ten-year prescriptive period for the revival of a judgment.
Whether the ten-year prescriptive period for reviving a judgment commences from the finality of the judgment (as provided in Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code) or from the expiration of the five-year period during which the judgment may be enforced by motion under the Revised Rules of Court.