Title
Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 72645
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1987
A final 1967 judgment for P20,000 was revived in 1974 but unenforced. Claim filed in 1982 against Gil Puyat’s estate was barred by prescription, as the 10-year period began in 1967, not 1974. SC affirmed dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72645)

Factual Background

In Civil Case No. 59506, a judgment was rendered in favor of Luzon Surety Company against the defendants, including Gil Puyat, for a principal sum of P20,000.00 with accumulated interest and additional awards, the judgment becoming final in 1967. Attempts to enforce this judgment were unsuccessful, prompting the filing of Civil Case No. 93268 to revive the original judgment, which was granted on May 24, 1974. Following Gil Puyat's death in 1981, a claim was filed against his estate for amounts owed under both judgments, leading to the estate's claim being dismissed based on the prescriptive periods for enforcement and laches.

Judicial Decisions and Rationale

The lower courts, including the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and the Intermediate Appellate Court, ruled that the claim to enforce the original judgment had prescribed. They upheld that the ten-year prescriptive period for enforcing judgments commences from the date the judgment becomes final and executory, not from the finality of any revival of that judgment. The laws applied include Article 1144 of the Civil Code regarding the prescriptive period for judicial enforcement and Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which specifies the manner in which judgments may be executed.

Prescription of Action

The legal argument revolved around whether the enforcement action could be initiated based on the revived judgment’s finality. The courts concluded that, even if Civil Case No. 93268 was a valid effort to revive the original judgment, it did not extend the original prescriptive period of ten years, which had already elapsed by the time the claim was filed against the estate of Gil Puyat in 1982. The courts maintained that prescriptive periods must be consistent and predictable, aligning with the rulings in Philippine National Bank v. Deloso and Gutierrez Hermanos v. De La Riva, emphasizing that any claim to enforce a judgment must be acted upon within the specific timeframes established by law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the pe

...continue reading

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