G.R. No. 19827 ; April 6, 1923
GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Supreme Court rendered a decision on January 12, 1909, modifying a lower court judgment in favor of Gutierrez Hermanos. The Supreme Court’s clerk entered judgment on February 3, 1909. The record was remanded to the Court of First Instance (CFI), which, upon plaintiff’s motion, entered its own judgment conforming to the Supreme Court’s decision on February 26, 1914. Writs of execution were issued in 1918 but were returned unsatisfied. On February 15, 1922, the plaintiff filed an action to revive the judgment. The defendant argued the judgment had prescribed. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the five-year period under Section 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuing a writ of execution on a judgment began to run from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment entry (February 3, 1909) or from the date of the CFI’s conforming judgment (February 26, 1914).

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and DISMISSED the complaint. The five-year period for execution began from the date the Supreme Court’s judgment was entered by its clerk (February 3, 1909). The judgment entered by the CFI on February 26, 1914, was a superfluous proceeding with no legal effect. Therefore, the writs of execution issued in 1918 were issued beyond the five-year period and were of no legal effect. Consequently, the action to revive the judgment filed in 1922 was filed after the judgment had prescribed. The Court held that the prescriptive period for execution is a matter of positive law and is a statute of repose. (A separate dissenting opinion argued that the ten-year period for an action to revive a judgment under Section 447 should apply, and that period would not have expired until 1924.)