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 (five years) to maintain their rights.
- Merely filing a motion without following through does not
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 31814)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Felix Arambulo against the Court of First Instance of Laguna and the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna.
- The petitioner seeks to declare null and void a decree issued by the respondent court on May 16, 1929, which ordered the execution of a judgment from November 27, 1914.
Background of the Case
- On November 27, 1914, the Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered judgment in civil case No. 1725, with the municipality of Santa Rosa as the plaintiff and Felix Arambulo as the defendant.
- The court declared Arambulo in default and ordered him to vacate the land in question.
- Following the finality of the judgment, the provincial fiscal for Laguna filed a motion on March 24, 1915, for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was not acted upon by the court.
Subsequent Developments
- On May 7, 1929, the provincial fiscal filed another motion for a writ of execution for the judgment rendered in 1914.
- The vacation judge, Mariano A. Albert, ruled on this motion on May 16, 1929, stating that the five-year prescription period had been interrupted by the earlier motion filed in 1915.