This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To clearly restate these rulings, for execution by motion to be valid, the judgment creditor must ensure the accomplishment of two acts within the five-year prescriptive period. These are: a) the filing of the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution; and b) the court's actual issuance of the writ. In the instances when the Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years, we only recognized one exception, i.e., when the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.[57] However, petitioner failed to show or cite circumstances showing how OCWD or Subic Water caused it to belatedly file its second motion for execution. | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgment or actions is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights. Far from sleeping on their rights, respondents persistently pursued their rights of action. It is revolting to the conscience to allow petitioner to further avert the satisfaction of her obligation because of sheer literal adherence to technicality (citation omitted).[55] We also subtracted from the five (5)-year period the time when the judgment could not be enforced due to the restraining order issued by this Court,[56] and when the records of the case were lost or misplaced through no fault of the petitioner.[57] In Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Vda. de Villaroya, we likewise excluded the delays caused by the auditor's requirements which were not the fault of the parties who sought execution, and ruled that "[i]n the eight years that elapsed from the time the judgment became final until the filing of the restraining motion by the private respondents, the judgment never became dormant. Section 6, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court does not apply."[58] In Jacinto v. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court further held: Granting for the sake of argument that the motion for an alias writ of execution was beyond the five [5]-year limitation within which a judgment may be executed by mere motion, still under the circumstances prevailing wherein all the delay in the execution of the judgment lasting for more than eight [8]-years was beneficial to private respondents, this Court[,] for reasons of equity[,] is constrained to treat the motion for execution as having been filed within the reglementary period required by law.[59] (Emphasis supplied.) Republic v. Court of Appeals summed it up as follows: To be sure, there had been many instances where this Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years, upon meritorious grounds. These exceptions have one common denominator, and that is: the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage (emphasis supplied).[60] In the case at bar, since the judgment of the CA became final on July 13, 1981, private respondent had filed several motions for and in support of its execution. After the dismissal of the appeal of Trans-Resource Management Corporation in 1985, private respondent moved for the inclusion of the Las Piñas property in the order of execution. He reasoned that the February 10, 1982 Writ of Execution could not be enforced against the Las Piñas property because the title number was already changed and could not be traced or found in the Register of Deeds.[61] | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Subsequently, an order quashing the writ of execution was issued by the court a quo on September 23, 1986 which private respondent questioned in a motion for reconsideration. Before the lower court released its Decision, on private respondent's motion for reconsideration, Raquiza filed the assailed Motion to Enforce the Motion to Execute. In view of the foregoing circumstances and for reasons of equity, we are constrained to treat the Motion to Enforce the Motion to Execute as having been filed within the reglementary period. The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments or actions is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights.[62] Private respondent, on the contrary, persistently sought the execution of the judgment in his favor. | |||||