G.R. No. 31814 - Arambulo vs. Court of 1st Instance of Laguna

Title: Arambulo vs. Court of 1st Instance of Laguna

Case: G.R. No. 31814

Decision Date: Aug 9, 1929

A 1914 judgment ordered Felix Arambulo to vacate land. A 1915 motion for execution was filed but not acted upon. In 1929, another motion was filed, but the court lacked jurisdiction as the five-year prescriptive period had lapsed, rendering the 1929 order void.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Summary (G.R. No. 31814)

Case Overview

Petitioner: Felix Arambulo
Respondents: Court of First Instance of Laguna and Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna
Date of Decision: August 09, 1929
Judicial Authority: Villa-Real, J.

Background of the Case

Felix Arambulo sought a writ of certiorari to nullify the May 16, 1929 decree from the Court of First Instance of Laguna, which ordered the execution of a judgment from November 27, 1914.
The judgment declared Arambulo in default and mandated his vacation of the contested land in favor of the Municipality of Santa Rosa.

Legal Principles Involved

Execution of Judgment

Legal Provision: Section 443 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure)
- Principle: The party favored by a judgment may request a writ of execution within five years post-judgment entry.
- Definition of "Have": Implies the necessity of taking affirmative steps to obtain the writ, not merely requesting it.

Prescription Period

Timeframe: Five years from the entry of judgment (November 27, 1914).
- Consequences of Non-Action: Failure to act within this period results in the loss of the right to execute the judgment.

Relevant Findings

The Municipality of Santa Rosa filed a motion for execution on March 24, 1915, but did not take necessary steps to secure the writ.
A subsequent motion was filed on May 7, 1929, approximately fourteen years later, which exceeded the five-year execution period.

Jurisdictional Issues

Key Finding: The court lacked jurisdiction to issue an execution order after the expiration of the five-year period.
Precedent Cited: The case of Compania General de Tabacos vs. Martinez established that merely filing a motion does not suspend the statute of limitations for execution.

Decision Outcome

The order dated May 16, 1929, was declared null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the execution request was made beyond the legal timeframe.

Key Takeaways

A party must actively pursue enforcement of a judgment within a statutory period (fiv...continue reading

END