Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > August 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 31814 August 9, 1929 - FELIX ARAMBULO v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA ET AL.,

053 Phil 302:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 31814. August 9, 1929.]

FELIX ARAMBULO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ROSA, LAGUNA, Respondents.

Perfecto V. Añonuevo for Petitioner.

Provincial Fiscal Martinez for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; PERIOD TO OBTAIN SAME; SECTION 443, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. — According to section 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party in whose favor judgment is given may, at any time within five years after the entry thereof, have a writ of execution issued for its enforcement. In its ordinary meaning, the word "have" signifies to obtain, to procure, to secure something, and involves the idea of asking or praying for it. The law does not say that the party in whose favor judgment is rendered may simply "pray for" but may "have" a writ of execution issued within the five years after the date of its entry.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The mere filing of a motion asking for a writ of execution of a judgment, without taking the steps necessary to obtain said execution, does not interrupt the five-year limitation for obtaining execution of a judgment, and an order granting said motion, entered after said period has elapsed, is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


Felix Arambulo filed this petition for a writ of certiorari against the Court of First Instance of Laguna and the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, praying that, after proper legal proceedings, the decree of the respondent court of May 16, 1929, ordering execution of the judgment of said court rendered on November 27, 1914, be declared null and void.

As all the pertinent facts necessary for the decision of the question of law raised herein appear in the petition for certiorari and the documents attached thereto, as well as in the answer filed by the respondents and the documents attached thereto, there is no necessity for ordering the transmission to this court of the record of civil case No. 1725 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, for recovery of possession, wherein the order whose annulment is prayed for herein, was entered.

The pertinent facts necessary for the decision of the instant petition are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On November 27, 1914, the respondent Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered judgment in civil case No. 1725 of said court, the other respondent, the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, being the plaintiff, and the petitioner herein, Felix Arambulo, being the defendant, declaring the defendant in default, and ordering him to vacate the land in question.

The judgment having become final and subject to execution, the provincial fiscal of Laguna, acting in behalf of the municipality of Santa Rosa, filed a motion in said court on March 24, 1915, praying that a writ of execution of said judgment be issued to the provincial sheriff of Laguna.

As no writ of execution was issued by said court, the provincial fiscal of Laguna, filed a new motion on May 7, 1929, praying for a writ of execution of the judgment, rendered on November 27, 1914.

Passing upon said motion, the Honorable Mariano A. Albert, vacation judge, entered an order on May 16, 1929, declaring that the period of prescription had been interrupted by the filing of the motion of March 24, 1915, and ordered the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Laguna to issue a writ of execution in pursuance of the decision, in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of November 27, 1914, with the costs of the action.

It is this last order that the instant petition for certiorari seeks to annul.

Section 443 of Act No. 190, known as the Code of Civil Procedure, provides the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 443. When execution may issue. — The party in whose favor judgment is given, may, at any time within five years after the entry thereof, have a writ of execution issued for its enforcement, as hereinafter provided."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to the above-quoted legal provision, the party in whose favor judgment is given may, at any time within five years after the entry thereof, have a writ of execution issued for its enforcement. In its ordinary meaning, the word "have" signifies to obtain, to procure, to secure something, and involves the idea of asking or praying for it. The law does not say that the party in whose favor judgment is rendered may simply "pray for" but may "have" a writ of execution issued within the five years after the date of its entry.

In the case at bar, the respondent municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, only prayed for the execution of the judgment rendered on November 27, 1914, in its favor within the five years after the date of entry thereof, and did not take the necessary steps to obtain said execution within said period; it was only on May 7, 1929, or about fourteen years later, that it reiterated said prayer and obtained the corresponding writ of execution beyond the time fixed by law.

In the case of Compañia General de Tabacos v. Martinez (17 Phil., 160), wherein the question of the interruption of a judgment was raised, this court laid down the following doctrine:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Interruption of statute of limitations. — Inasmuch as an order to stay proceedings does not operate to suspend the running of the statute of limitations, a fortiori the mere presenting of a petition asking the court below to direct the register of deeds to furnish the court certain information, as in the case, should not operate to suspend the five-year limitation. (Buell v. Buell, 92 Cal., 393.)"

In accordance with the above-quoted doctrine, the mere filing of the motion on March 24, 1915 for the issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment dated November 27, 1914, by the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, without taking the necessary steps to obtain said order, did not interrupt the course of the prescription, and as such petition was not taken up again until May 7, 1929, that is, fourteen years later, the order issued granting said petition was rendered after the five-year limitation for the issuance of the writ of execution, when the court no longer had jurisdiction to do it.

For the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold, that the mere filing of a motion praying for a writ of execution of a judgment, without having taken the necessary steps to obtain said execution, does not interrupt the five-year period fixed by law for the prescription of the execution of a judgment, and that the order granting said motion entered after said period had elapsed, is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

By virtue whereof, the order of the respondent court dated May 16, 1929, is hereby declared null and void, for lack of jurisdiction, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 31342 August 3, 1929 - VICENTE ONG CHIONGCHI v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL NEGROS

    053 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 30532 August 5, 1929 - GODOFREDO MENDOZA v. TEODORO MENDIOLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 31251 August 6, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGUIA DE TAGA

    053 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 31255 August 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS GEYROSAGA

    053 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 30724 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DUCUSIN

    053 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 31070 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. T. WADE

    053 Phil 292

  • G.R. Nos. 30486 & 30487 August 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MAALIHAN

    053 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 31814 August 9, 1929 - FELIX ARAMBULO v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. 29412 August 10, 1929 - VICTORIANO OMBALINO v. FELIPA SALDARIAGA ET AL.

    053 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 30840 August 10, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL RIVERA

    053 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 30427 August 12, 1929 - HARRY MARTIN v. AGUSAN COCONUT CO.

    053 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 30686 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MONTES ET AL.

    053 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 31075 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO APIADO

    053 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 31680 August 14, 1929 - DIONISIO SAN PABLO v. FRANCISCO ENAGE

    053 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 30366 August 15, 1929 - SOCORRO SANCHEZ DE STRONG v. WILLIAM BEISHIR

    053 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 31025 August 15, 1929 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ ET AL. v. JUAN CARPIO

    053 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 30745 August 20, 1929 - J. V. HOUSE v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 31024 August 22, 1929 - RICARDO DE MESA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    053 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 29780 August 23, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ASIA LUMBER CO.

    053 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 30234 August 23, 1929 - CLARO VILLAROSA ET AL. v. ULDARICO VILLAMOR

    053 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 30240 August 23, 1929 - AQUILINA TACAS ET AL. v. EVARISTO TOBON

    053 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 31101 August 23, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DURANTE

    053 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 30495 August 24, 1929 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 30279 August 26, 1929 - MAXIMO GUILLENA v. CANDELARIO BORJA

    053 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 31273 August 26, 1929 - CORNELIO ALBA v. FORTUNATO ACUÑA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 31636 August 26, 1929 - SATURNINO GALLARDO v. ELIAS ALDANA

    053 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 30783 August 27, 1929 - JUAN B. ALEGRE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 31123 August 27, 1929 - PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. CARMEN BELANDO

    053 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 30421 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN JAVIER

    053 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 30668 August 28, 1929 - SABAS BUSTAMANTE ET AL. v. JOSE M. RATO Y TUASON ET AL.

    053 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 30829 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE ET AL.

    053 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 31120 August 28, 1929 - JESUSA LACSON DE ARROYO v. VISAYAN GENERAL SUPPLY CO.

    053 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 31137 August 30, 1929 - CING HONG SO v. TAN BOON KONG ET AL.

    053 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 30246 August 31, 1929 - AGRIPINO DE OCAMPO ET AL. v. JUAN ZAPORTEZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 442