Case Summary (G.R. No. 167281)
Legal Background and Proceedings
On June 5, 1978, the petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of the aforementioned land, resulting in Civil Case No. 639. On October 2, 1985, the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them owners of the property. Following the decision, Juan Dino, the predecessor of the respondents, appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed on January 28, 1987, thus rendering the trial court's decision final and executory.
Execution Attempts and Writ of Demolition
Petitioners' attempts to execute the judgment included filing a motion for execution, which was granted, but the writ was not served on Juan Dino. Consequently, petitioners sought an alias writ of execution and later a writ of demolition due to continued resistance from the respondents. A Writ of Demolition was issued on April 10, 1990, but was not implemented.
Complaint for Revival of Judgment
In light of their failure to execute the decision, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Execution of Decision on January 30, 1998, against the heirs of Juan Dino, leading to Civil Case No. 98-6433. The respondents contested this action, claiming it was barred by prescription.
Regional Trial Court Decision
On May 17, 2000, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing the revival of the October 2, 1985 decision and ordering the respondents to vacate the premises. The decision emphasized that the action to revive the judgment was timely.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
The respondents appealed the decision, and on December 22, 2003, the Court of Appeals ruled that the revival action was time-barred, reversing the trial court's decision. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied in January 2005.
Issues for Review
The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari, claiming that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. They raised issues regarding the disregarding of motions for execution and alleged that the Court's ruling on the prescription of the execution was erroneous.
Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the appellate court exceeded its discretionary authority by ruling that the petitioners could not enforce the trial court's decision. The petitioners, as registered owners under the Torrens system, could not los
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167281)
Background of the Case
- The petitioners filed a complaint on June 5, 1978, for the recovery of possession of a 1.2-hectare parcel of land in Caricaran, Bacon, Sorsogon.
- The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 182, registered in the name of petitioner Mary Manion Bausa.
- The case was assigned as Civil Case No. 639, which was later tried in Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon.
- On October 2, 1985, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them the rightful owners of the property and ordering the defendant, Juan Dino, to return the property and pay monthly rentals and attorney's fees.
Proceedings and Decisions
- Juan Dino appealed the trial court's decision, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, which became final on January 28, 1987.
- Petitioners sought execution of the judgment on November 19, 1987, but the writ was not served to Juan Dino.
- Respondents filed a petition for certiorari against the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on May 20, 1987, becoming final on November 26, 1987.
- After multiple attempts to execute the judgment, including seeking an alias writ of execution and a writ of demolition, petitioners faced resistance from respondents.
Filing for Revival of Judgment
- Unable to execute the judgment, petitioners filed a complaint for execution of the decision on January 30, 1998, now against the heirs of Juan Dino.
- The respondents claimed that the action was barred by prescription.