Case Digest (G.R. No. 203947)
Facts:
Rufa A. Rubio, Bartolome Bantoto, Leon Alagadmo, Rodrigo Delicta, and Adriano Alabata v. Lourdes Alabata, G.R. No. 203947, February 26, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to annul and set aside the November 16, 2011 Decision and the September 26, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 02497, which affirmed the February 28, 2008 dismissal by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City (RTC‑42) of petitioners’ action for revival of judgment.The dispute arises from an earlier case (Civil Case No. 10153) decided by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dumaguete City (RTC‑43). In its October 31, 1995 Decision, the RTC‑43 voided the Declaration of Heirship and Sale, ordered reconveyance of the subject property in favor of petitioners, dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded moral and exemplary damages and costs against respondent. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, but later moved to withdraw her appeal; the CA granted the motion and that resolution became final and executory on June 20, 1997. An Entry of Judgment was issued and recorded on August 20, 1997.
The RTC‑43 judgment was not executed immediately. Petitioners were represented by the Public Attorneys Office (PAO); while the appeal was pending the case was handled by the Special Appealed Cases Division (SAC‑PAO) in Manila. A copy of the Entry of Judgment was apparently sent to the SAC‑PAO lawyer handling the matter, who resigned and failed to inform petitioners or PAO‑Dumaguete that the CA had recorded the Entry of Judgment. Petitioners assert they were told by PAO‑Dumaguete that the appeal remained pending. Petitioners only discovered the finality of the RTC‑43 decision in November 2007, when a nephew obtained a copy of the Entry of Judgment.
On December 5, 2007 petitioners, through PAO‑Dumaguete, filed an action for revival of judgment before RTC‑42. Respondent answered and moved to dismiss; on February 28, 2008 RTC‑42 dismissed the revival action on the ground of prescription and denied reconsideration on April 4, 2008. Petitione...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ action for revival of judgment as prescribed, despite petitioners’ lack of fault attributable to their counsel at ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)