Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29317)
Facts:
- Petitioner, Marcela Sabulao Vda. de Decena, is the mother of the defendant in Civil Case No. Q-5123 entitled "People's Homesite & Housing Corporation vs. Joaquin Decena" for ejectment.
- The court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay monthly rent.
- The decision became final on July 14, 1961.
- After more than five years, on June 24, 1968, the court issued a demolition order to enforce the judgment.
- The petitioner argued that the order was void because she was not a party to the original case and the court no longer had jurisdiction to execute the dormant judgment upon mere motion.
- The petitioner also claimed that the order was issued after the expiration of the five-year period from the final judgment.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The demolition order is v...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The order was issued after the expiration of the five-year period and the court no longer had jurisdiction to execute the judgment.
- Under the Rules of Court, the plaintiff must institute a new action to revive the judgment, not execute it upon mere motion.
- Failure to object to a writ of execution issued after five years does not validate it.
- The action to revive the judgment prescribed in ten years from the date the judgme...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29317)
Facts:
The case of Vda. de Decena v. De los Angeles involves a petition to prevent the execution of a demolition order. The petitioner, Marcela Sabulao Vda. de Decena, is the mother of the defendant in Civil Case No. Q-5123, entitled "People's Homesite & Housing Corporation vs. Joaquin Decena," for ejectment. The court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay monthly rent. The judgment became final on July 14, 1961. After more than five years, on June 24, 1968, the court issued a demolition order to enforce the judgment. However, the petitioner argued that she was not a party to the original case and therefore the order was void.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether the demolition order issued by the court to enforce the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-5123 is valid, considering that the petitioner was not a party to the original case.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and declared the demolition order void. The court ...