DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 14, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals Fifteenth Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 97317 is AFFIRlVIED. The Decision dated May 17, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42 of San Fernando, Pampanga in Civil Case No. 11757 which affirmed with modification the December 15, 1998 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 3 of San Fernando, Pampanga in Civil Case No. 7463, a case for unlawful detainer, entitled Abelardo C. Miranda, et al. v. Eddie Pineda, et al., is hereby REVIVED.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS IS A CASE FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AT MTC WHICH RULED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS. APPEALED TO RTC WHICH AFFIRMED MTC DECISION. PETITIONERS DID NOT APPEAL THE RTC DECISION. 7 YEARS PASSED. RESPONDENTS FILED AT RTC FOR COMPLAINT TO REVIVE JUDMENT. PETITIONERS FILED SEVERAL MOTIONS AND APPEALS. SUPREME COURT SAID PETITIONERS’ REMEDY WAS APPEAL WHEN RTC PROMULGATED ITS DECISION. THEIR SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS AND APPEALS ARE WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS.

In this case, the RTC Branch 42 Decision dated May 17, 1999 became final and executory when no further kgal a,~tion was undertaken by herein petitioners concerning the RTC Branch 42 Decision. Thus, on January 6, 2000 or less than a year after the RTC Branch 42 Decision became final, respondents filed a 1\.1otion for the l,ssuance of a \Vrit of Execution. The Motion was granted on February 14, 2000. However, seven years later, the RTC Branch 42 Decision h~1d not yet been executed. Thus, on .May 9, 2006, the respondents filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment in accordance with the above legal provisions. On the premise that the RTC Branch 42 Decision was already final and executory, respondents filed a revival suit as a procedural means of securing the execution of the RTC Branch 42 Decision which had become dormant after the passage of several years. The revival suit filed by respondents did not intend to re-open any issue affecting the merits of the case or the propriety or correctness of the first judgment.38, the ordinary remedy of appeal was still readily available as a proper

As for petitioners legal re.rnedy ath~r tlw RTC Bqmch 42 promulgated its Decision on May 17, 1999. l-lov;cver, instead of filing an ordinary appeal, petitioners filed the following motion and petitions throughout the course of the proceedings: (1) Motion to Quash Writ of Execution; (2) Petition for Annulment of Judgment; and (3) Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition.

FirstfJJ, the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution was filed on the ground that the Writ of Execution cannot be enforced anymore because more than five years had elapsed since its issuance. 39 However, the Court notes that respondents’ Complaint for Revival of h1dgment was filed on May 9, 2006, two months before petitioners filed their ~1otion to Quash the Writ of Execution on July 20, 2006. Neither did petitioners show that there had been a change in the situation of the parties whtch makes tbe execution inequitable; or that the writ of execution was improperly issued, defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party; or that the judgment debt had been paid or otherwise satisfied; or that the writ was issued without a,.uthority:10 Petitioners’ Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution was therefore groundless.

Secondly, petitioners’ Petition for Annulment of Judgment of both the MTC and R TC Decisions was correctly dismissed by the CA not only because it did not have jurisdiction over the Petition but also because it was not the proper legal remedy.

Rule 47, Sections 1 and 241 of the Rules of Court are clear. The remedy of annulment of judgment can only be availed of when the ordinary remedy of appeal, among others, is no longer available through no fault of the petitioners. Furthermore, the annulment may be based only on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of j urisdiction which were clearly not present in this case.

Lastly, petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition filed with the CA was to compel the RTC to give due course to petitioners’ Notice of Appeal filed after the RTC granted respondents’ Complaint for Revival of Judgment. A Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition is only available when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.42 Again, the Court reiterates that the ordinary remedy of appeal was easily available to petitioners when the RTC Branch 42 promulgated its l\1ay 1 7, 1999 Decision.

In the end, the Court finds that the CA correctly ruled that the RTC Branch 42 Decision can still be revived as the respondents properly filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment in accordance with existing law and jurisprudence. The Court therefore instructs the RTC to execute Civil Case No. 11757 with deliberate dispatch.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

scd-2021-0040-edilberto-eddie-pineda-et-al.-vs.-abelardo-c.-miranda-et-al.Download

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.