Title
Lancita vs. Magbanua
Case
G.R. No. L-15467
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1963
A forcible entry case judgment, revived in 1951, allowed an alias writ of execution in 1957 within the five-year prescriptive period, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15467)

Timeline of Events

On March 21, 1951, the respondents initiated a complaint for forcible entry (Civil Case No. 7) against the petitioners. Following a series of postponements instigated by the defendants, the Justice of the Peace Court rendered a judgment on July 17, 1951, declaring the petitioners in default and ordering them to vacate the subject property and pay damages amounting to P200.00. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on August 21, 1951, as well as a Notice of Appeal that was abandoned due to a lack of the requisite bond.

Court Orders and Further Proceedings

Subsequently, on October 24, 1951, the Justice of the Peace Court granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, staying the implementation of the original decision. However, on November 27, 1951, the court revived this judgment, citing that the matter had been pending for almost a year with multiple postponements having been granted.

Motion for Alias Writ of Execution

On November 26, 1956, the respondents requested an Alias Writ of Execution due to repeated failures of the provincial sheriff to enforce the prior judgment. The petitioners opposed this motion on the grounds that the five-year period for the execution of the judgment had elapsed and that issuing the writ would cause them irreparable harm. Nonetheless, the Justice of the Peace Court issued the alias writ on March 27, 1957.

Petition for Certiorari

The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cotabato on April 22, 1957, alleging that the Justice of the Peace Court acted with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners contended that the original judgment became final on July 17, 1951, and thus the motion for execution filed nearly five years later was beyond the statutory limit.

Court's Ruling

On July 12, 1957, the trial court ruled primarily on whether the alias writ was issued within the five-year prescriptive period for executions. The court found that because the motion for reconsideration by the petitioners delayed the finality of the original judgment until November 27, 1951, the alias writ issued on November 26, 1956, was indeed timely. The court held that since no undue delay was caused by the respondents, the grounds for the petitioners' arguments were unfounded.

Final Decision and Costs

The court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.