G.R. No. 204997 - Pineda vs. Miranda

On October 27, 1997, respondents Abelardo C. Miranda, Elias C. Miranda, and Carmencita D. Miranda filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against petitioners residing in Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Branch 3 of San Fernando City.
On December 15, 1998, the MTC ruled in favor of respondents, holding them as registered owners of 24 parcels of land unlawfully occupied by petitioners without their consent. The petitioners were ordered to remove structures, vacate the lots, pay reasonable compensation from October 1995 to the actual vacation, attorney’s fees of ₱60,000, litigation expenses of ₱10,000, and costs of suit.

Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, San Fernando.
On May 17, 1999, the RTC affirmed with modification the MTC Decision, reducing attorney’s fees to ₱10,000 and rental compensation to ₱100 per lot per month from the time of demand to actual vacation.

Respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution on January 6, 2000, granted on February 14, 2000.
After more than five years without execution, respondents filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment on May 9, 2006 before RTC Branch 43, asserting the writ was not implemented within five years and the judgment was not yet barred by the statute of limitations.
Petitioners answered, claiming lack of jurisdiction of RTC Branch 43 and that revival should have been filed with the MTC.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on July 20, 2006, arguing enforcement was barred after five years. The MTC quashed the writ on November 15, 2006 citing the lapse of five years and necessity of revival by independent action.

While RTC Branch 43 considered the Complaint for Revival, petitioners filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the rulings in the unlawful detainer case.
On March 20, 2009, RTC Branch 43 rendered a decision reviving the May 17, 1999 RTC Branch 42 decision, ruling the revival complaint filed within the 10-year period.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied on July 23, 2009.
Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal was dismissed on September 24, 2009; respondents’ motion to remand record to MTC was granted December 28, 2009.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with CA to compel RTC Branch 43 to give due course to their notice of appeal.

June 10, 2009: CA Special Seventeenth Division dismissed Petition for Annulment of Judgment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of appeal from RTC Branch 42 decision.
November 2, 2010: CA Former First Division granted Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition, directing RTC to give due course to petitioners’ notice of appeal.
December 14, 2012: CA Fifteenth Division denied petitioners’ appeal from RTC Branch 43 decision on revival of judgment, affirming that RTC Branch 42 May 17, 1999 decision is final and executory and subject to revival.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners’ appeal under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding revival of judgment.

Whether the RTC Branch 43 had jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 13259, an action for revival of judgment.

Whether the petitioners’ motions and petitions, including Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, Petition for Annulment of Judgment, and Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition, were proper and timely remedies.