ROQUE B. PACARIEM AND JUANITA P. MERCADO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ELVINA M. MANGALINDAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. EVELYN SAN RAMON AND DANILO YUMOL, DEFENDANTS-AP…

Pacariem versus San Ramon

The Case

This is an appeal brought by spouses Roque Pacariem and Juanita Mercado, through their attorney-in-fact Elvina Mangalindan, as plaintiffs, against Evelyn San Ramon and Danilo Yumol, as defendants. The action below was one for revival of judgment — the plaintiffs sought to breathe life into a final and executory decision that had never been executed. The case matters because it fixes, in plain terms, the two-tier period for enforcing a judgment: five years by mere motion, and ten years by independent action. Every examinee who meets a "revival of judgment" question needs this framework.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs first filed a complaint for sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1. That court rendered a judgment by default on 28 July 2003 in the plaintiffs' favor. The decision became final and executory, but it was never executed. The plaintiffs then filed a separate complaint for revival of judgment on 22 October 2010, which was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. On 28 May 2013, Branch 11 rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, reviving the 28 July 2003 decision. The defendants appealed, assigning as errors that the original decision never attained finality because it was not served on them, that the proceedings were a nullity for want of notice, that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches, and that grave injustice and unjust enrichment would result. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it in the decision now before us.

Facts

On 17 August 2001, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1. On 28 July 2003, that court rendered judgment by default, ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally Eight Thousand Kuwaiti Dinars or its equivalent in local currency at the exchange rate prevailing on the due date of 1 June 2001, with interest at the legal rate of twelve percent on the unpaid balance from 28 July 2001 until fully paid, plus 50,000 pesos in attorney's fees and the costs of suit.

The decision became final and executory, but it was never executed. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for revival of judgment on 22 October 2010. The defendants resisted, claiming they had been assured by the plaintiffs' attorney-in-fact that the matter would no longer be pursued, that they were surprised by the decision, that it was never served on them and so never attained finality, that they were not informed of the proceedings, and that estoppel by laches and unjust enrichment barred revival.

The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs and revived the 2003 decision. The records showed that a certain Carlo Soledad received a copy of the decision for the defendants, and a certification from the Clerk of Court of Branch 1 stated that the decision was furnished to the defendants on 23 September 2003 and had become final and executory.

Issues

• Whether or not the 28 July 2003 decision, allegedly not served on the defendants, attained finality and may be enforced through the present action.
• Whether or not the proceedings in the original civil case are a nullity because the defendants were not informed of them.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs are guilty of laches.
• Whether or not grave injustice and unjust enrichment would result if the decision were enforced.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; (2) Upon an obligation created by law; (3) Upon a judgment.

This fixes the ten-year period within which a judgment may be enforced by independent action.

Article 1152 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1152. The period for prescription of actions to demand the fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment commences from the time the judgment became final.

This tells us when the ten-year clock starts — from finality of the judgment.

Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. — A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitation, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.

This is the very provision the Court applies: it sets the five-year period for execution by motion and the ten-year period for enforcement by action.

Ruling

On the first and second issues, the Court held that the defendants failed to prove they were not served. A certain Carlo Soledad received a copy of the decision for them as appearing on the records, and except for bare denials, no proof contradicted the plaintiffs' evidence. A certification from the Clerk of Court of Branch 1 stated that the decision was furnished to the defendants on 23 September 2003 and had become final and executory. The claim of nullity for want of notice therefore failed.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court held that laches did not bar the action. The revival complaint was filed on 22 October 2010, and the lapse of seven years from the 28 July 2003 judgment was well within the ten-year period under Section 6 of Rule 39. The Court explained the two-tier scheme: once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party may have it executed as a matter of right by mere motion within five years from entry; if that fails, the judgment is reduced to a right of action enforceable by complaint in a regular court within ten years from the time it became final. The purpose of the time limits is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights — and here, far from sleeping, the plaintiffs filed the second complaint to enforce their right. The revival was therefore in order.

Doctrine

A final and executory judgment may be executed by mere motion within five years from the date of its entry. After that period, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, it may be enforced by an independent action within ten years from the time it became final, under Article 1144 of the Civil Code and Section 6 of Rule 39. The revived judgment may itself be enforced by motion within five years from its entry and thereafter by action before prescription sets in. Laches does not bar a revival action filed within the ten-year period, because the law itself fixes the time for enforcing judgments.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the 28 May 2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11, reviving the 28 July 2003 judgment. The plaintiffs won.

Remember This

Memorize the two-tier rule: five years by motion, ten years by independent action, counted from finality. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that a revival action filed within ten years is timely and is not barred by laches.