Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENT
EXECUTION is a process provided by law for the enforcement of a final and
executory judgment. Enforcement is part of the court’s jurisdiction.
It is a remedy afforded for the satisfaction of a judgment. Its object being to obtain
satisfaction of the judgment on which writ is issued (Cagayan de Oro Coliseum v. CA,
G.R. No. 129713, December 15, 1999).
It is the fruit and end of suit (Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445, June 21,
1999).
Against whom issued: Execution can only issue against a party and not against one
who never had his day in court (Green Arces Holdings, Inc. v. Cabral, G.R. No.
175542, June 5, 2013).
Writ of Execution
A judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing him to enforce the judgment of the court
in accordance with Rule 39.
Exceptions:
1. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the
delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the
decision, it appearing that the defeated party’s claim to the possession thereof is
based on his claim of ownership which was rejected (Id).
2. Where there is ambiguity in the dispositive portion, the body of the opinion may be
referred to for purposes of construing the judgment because the dispositive part of
a decision must find support from the decision’s ratio decidendi (Mutual Security
Ins. Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-47018, September 11, 1987; The Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884, March 28,
2008); and
3. Where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in
the body of the decision (Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chung, et al. v. Chinese National
Cereals Oil and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp., G.R. No. 131502, June 8,
2000).
When does a judgment become final and executory?
Judgments and orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by
judicial declaration. The trial court need not even pronounce the finality of the order
as the same becomes final by operation of law. Its finality becomes a fact when the
reglementary period for appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such period
(Testate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan v. Biascan, G.R. No. 138731, December
11, 2000; Vlason Enterprises v. CA, G.R. Nos. 121662-664, July 6, 1999; See
discussion under ROC, Rule 36, Sec. 2).
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source
of any right not the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and
any writ of execution based on it is void (Galicia v. Manliquez, G.R. No. 155785, April
13, 2007).
Note: Only final judgments or orders that have become final and executory can be
the subject of execution, except when a discretionary execution is granted. An
interlocutory order may not be the subject of execution (See Discussion on
Difference between Final Judgments or Orders and interlocutory orders under ROC,
Rule 36).
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ
412 SCRA 1 (2003)
• Facts: Lu was the defendant in a civil case for ejectment raffled to Judge
Siapno. On 7 September 1995, Judge Siapno rendered a decision ordering
Lu to immediately vacate the premises and ordered a writ of execution be
issued. Lu’s counsel received the Decision on 13 September 1995 and filed a
Notice of Appeal on even date. Meanwhile, a writ of execution was issued on
11 September 1995 and was implemented by Sheriff Lopez on the same date
by forcibly ejecting Lu from the premises.
• Held: Clerk of Court Corpuz issued the writ, and Sheriff Lopez implemented
the same, at least two days before Lu’s counsel received the MTC
decision. Clearly, this is an improper procedure because the clerk of court
issued the writ of execution before the losing party received the decision. The
losing party must first receive notice of the judgment before the court or its
personnel can execute the judgment. The reason is that if such judgment is
immediately executed without prior notice to the losing party, then such a
party has no remedy if the evidence or law does not support the judgment.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ
412 SCRA 1 (2003)
• Moreover, even if the MTC decision itself ordered that a writ of execution be
issued, this does not mean that notice of the motion for execution to the
adverse party is unnecessary. The court cannot direct the issuance of a writ
of execution motu proprio. Section 8, Rule 70 explicitly provides that although
execution is immediately executory, judgment may be stayed by perfecting an
appeal, filing a supersedeas bond approved by the court and periodically
paying the rents during the pendency of the appeal. A party is not in a position
to stay execution unless he receives notice of the filing of a motion for
execution. After all, a party has 15 days to perfect his appeal and stay
execution by filing a notice of appeal and supersedeas bond and periodically
depositing the rentals. Unless he receives notice of a motion for execution, he
cannot take these steps to stay execution. While the MTC decision authorized
Corpuz to issue a writ of execution, its issuance prior to receipt by Lu of the
decision was precipitate and against all sense of fair play. Clearly, Corpuz
abused her authority.
Classes of Execution:
A. As to their nature:
1. Compulsory execution – known as Execution as a Matter of Right (ROC,
Rule 36, Sec.1)
2. Discretionary execution – known as Execution Pending Appeal (ROC,
Rule 36, Sec. 2)
Note:The general rule is that only judgment that have become final and executory
may be enforced by execution. However, even if judgments have not yet become
final and executory, they may be executed provided that the prevailing party
complied with the requirements for a discretionary execution or an execution
pending appeal.
B. As to how it is enforced:
1. Execution by motion; or
2. Execution by independent action (ROC Rule 36, Sec. 6).
Section 1. EXECUTION UPON JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
General Rule. Execution shall issue as a matter of right on the part of the
prevailing party once a judgment becomes final and executory (Greater
Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee v. Jancom Environment
Corporation; G.R. No. 163663, June 30, 2006).
Exceptions:
Where the judgment turns out to be Incomplete or conditional (Del Rosario v.
Villegas, G.R. No. L-25726, November 22, 1926; Ignacio v. Hilario, G.R. No. L-
175; April 30, 1946; Cu Unjieng v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-32644,
October 4, 1930);
2. Judgment Novated by subsequent agreement of the parties (Dormitorio v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. L-25897, August 21, 1976);
3. Equitable grounds like a change in situation of the parties which makes
execution inequitable (Supervening facts doctrine) (Bachrach Corporation
v. CA, G.R. No. 128349, September 25, 1998)
Note: For the supervening event to apply, the supervening event must
happen after the judgment has become final and executory (Aboitiz Shipping
Employees Association v. Trajano, G.R. No. 112955, September 1, 1997).
a. While it has jurisdiction over the case (before the expiration of the 15 day
reglementary period or extension allowed) and before the Court of Appeals
gives due course to a petition for review (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 2 in relation
to ROC, Rule 42, Sec. 8).
Verily, the grant of discretionary execution is pursuant to the trial court’s residual
jurisdiction under ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 9 and Rule 42, Sec. 8.
2. With the appellate court – after the trial court has lost jurisdiction.
Note: What is allowed under the rules is discretionary execution of the judgment or
final order of the trial court. The Court of Appeals has no authority to issue
immediate execution pending appeal of its own decision (Heirs of J.B.L. Reyes v.
CA, G.R. No. 135180-81, August 16, 2000).
Mere posting of a bond by the successful party is not in itself a good reason for
ordering execution pending appeal, because it is the combination of circumstances
which is the dominating reason that would justify immediate execution, the bond
being only an additional factor (International School, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 131109,
June 29, 1999).
Note: An award for actual and compensatory damages may be ordered executed
pending appeal, but not an award for moral or exemplary damages.
Reason: Moral and exemplary damages are dependent on the outcome of the
appeal. While the amounts of actual damages are fixed and certain (Radio
Communications of the Phils., v. Lantin, G.R. No. L-59311, January 31, 1985).
BALAJONDA v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 166032, 28 February 2005
• The public policy underlying the suppletory application of Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 is
to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected candidate as determined by
either the courts or the COMELEC. Thus, procedural rules in election cases
are liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
• In this case, there are good reasons that justify the execution of judgment
pending appeal, to wit: (1) the public interest involved or the will of the
electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining period, and (3) the length of
time that the election contest has been pending.
SECTION 3. STAY OF DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
The party against whom an execution is directed may file a sufficient supersedeas
bond to stay discretionary execution.
Supersedeas Bond
A bond executed by the party against whom the execution was issued in favour of the
prevailing party conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed
to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part by the appellate
court. Discretionary execution shall be stayed upon approval of the supersedeas
bond.
Note: Supersedeas bond guarantees satisfaction of the judgment in case of
affirmance on appeal. It does not answer for damage to property pending the appeal.
General Rule: When a defendant puts up a supersedeas bond, the court shall recall
the execution pending appeal because the discretionary execution is the exception
rather than the rule.
Exception: Notwithstanding the filing of the supersedeas bond by appellant,
execution pending appeal may still be granted by the court if there are special and
compelling reasons justifying the same outweighing the security offered by the
supersedeas bond, for example, in a judgment for support (De Leon v. Soriano,
supra)
SECTION 4. JUDGMENTS NOT STAYED BY APPEAL
The rule on immediate execution of judgment in an injunction case does not apply
to a judgment in an action for prohibition (Embroidery & Apparel Control Board v.
Cloribel, G.R. No. L-20024, June 30, 1967).
Principle of Immutability of Final and Executory Judgments
General Rule: Once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and
unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the land (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corp. G.R.
No. 140374, November 27, 2002.)
Exception: The court may modify or alter a judgment even after the same has
become executory whenever unjust and inequitable, as where certain facts and
circumstances justifying or requiring such modification or alteration transpired after
the judgment has become final and executory (David v. CA, G.R. No. 115821,
October 13, 1999) (See Other Exceptions Discussed in ROC, Rule 36)
Reason: The fact that the decision has become final does not preclude a
modification or an alteration thereof because even with the finality or judgment,
when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, it may be modified or altered to
harmonize the same with justice and the facts (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation,
supra).
Griffith vs. Estur
G.R. No. 161777, 7 May 2008
• Labor Arbiter Layawen’s decision is already final and executory and can no
longer be the subject of an appeal. Thus, petitioner is bound by the decision
and can no longer impugn the same. Indeed, well-settled is the rule that a
decision that has attained finality can no longer be modified even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.
SECTION 5. EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT
If reversed totally or partially, or annulled (Rule 47), on appeal or otherwise, the trial
court may, on motion, issue orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity
and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
Modes of Enforcement
1. By motion within five (5) years from date of its entry.
2. By independent action for revival of judgment after lapse of five (5) years from
entry and before it is barred by statute of limitations.
The statute of limitations provides that actions upon a judgment must be brought
within ten (10) years from entry of such judgment (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1143(3)). Thus,
the independent action for revival of judgment may still be filed within (5) years from
the lapse of the first (5) within which judgment may be enforced by motion.
An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the
execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five
years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to
re-open any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor’s case nor the propriety
or correctness of the first judgment. An action for revival of judgment is a new and
independent action, different and distinct from either the recovery of property case or
the reconstitution case, wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the
merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered.
Revival of judgment is premised on the assumption that the decision to be revived,
either by motion or by independent action, is already final and executory (Saligumba v.
Palanog, G.R. No. 143365, December 4, 2008).
General Rule: A final and executory judgment must be enforced by motion within five
(5) years from its entry. Otherwise, it becomes a dormant judgment which may only
be enforced through an independent action for revival of judgment.
Exception: A final and executory judgment may still be enforced by motion after the
five (5) year period from entry if:
1. Delay is attributable to the judgment debtor as when he employs legal
maneuvers to block the enforcement of the judgment (Republic v. CA, G.R.
No. 91885, August 7,1996); and
2. Agreement of the parties to suspend the enforcement of the judgment
(Macias v. Lim, G.R. No. 139284, June 4, 2004).
There have been many instances where the Court allowed execution by motion even
after the lapse of five years upon meritorious grounds. These exceptions have one
common denominator, and that is, delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the
judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage (Republic v. CA, G.R.
No. 91885, August 7, 1996).
A revived judgment is a new judgment thus another five or ten (5/10) year period to
execute and revive is given the party.That second revived judgment can again be
enforced under Sec. 6 (Philippine National Bank v. Bondoc, G.R. No. L-20236, July
30, 1965).
If in 2008, the plaintiff was able to revive the dormant judgment via an independent
action, he has until 2013 or 5 years from the date of entry of the second judgment to
enforce it by motion. If he again fails to enforce the judgment by motion within the
latter period, he again has 5 years or until 2018 to have the judgment revived and
enforced by independent action.
By motion By
independent
action
SECTION 7. EXECUTION IN CASE OF DEATH OF PARTY
A. In case of death of the judgment obligee:
Execution will issue in any case upon the application of his executor, or
successor in interest.
Execution will not issue if the action is for the recovery of a sum of money. In this
situation, the judgment obligee should file a claim against the estate of the
judgment obligor under Rule 86.
2. After levy:
Execution will continue even in money judgment. The property may be sold for
the satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale shall
account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his
hands.
Reason: After a valid levy, the property is already separated from the estate of the
deceased and is deemed in custodia legis.
SECTION 8. ISSUANCE FORM AND CONTENTS OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION
The writ of execution shall:
1. Issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted
the motion;
2. State the name of the court, the case number and title the dispositive part of the
subject judgment or order; and
3. Require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ
according to its terms.
The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, or certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee or any other form of payment acceptable to the obligee (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 9, par. (b)).
Levy is an act by which an officer sets apart or appropriates a part or the whole
property of the judgment debtor for purposes of the execution sale (Fiestan v. CA
G.R. No. 81552, May 28, 1990).
Levy is a pre-requisite to the auction sale. In order that an execution sale may be
valid, there must be a previous valid levy. A sale not preceded by a valid levy is void
and the purchaser acquires no title (Valenzuela v. De Aguilar, G.R. No. L-18083-84,
May 31, 1963).
The sheriff can validly levy any property of the judgment obligor which may be
disposed for value but not exempt from execution. The judgment obligor has the
option to choose which property to levy upon.
If he does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties,
if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to
answer for the judgment (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 9, par.)
Levy by the sheriff may be done only if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of
the obligation in cash, certified bank check or through other modes acceptable to the
prevailing party. If payment can be done, a levy is unnecessary (Villarin v. Munasque,
G.R. No. 169444, September 17, 2008).
Real or personal property or any interest in either may be levied upon in like manner
and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.
Real Property: By filing with the Register of Deeds a copy of the order together with
the description of the property and a notice that it is attached (ROC, RULE 57, Sec 7
par. (a))
The garnishee or the 3rd person who is in possession of the property of the judgment
debtor is deemed a forced intervenor.
Attachment Garnishment
It refers to corporeal property in the It refers to money, stocks, credits and
possession of the judgment debtor. other incorporeal property which belong
to the judgment debtor but is in the
possession or under the control of a
third person.
DAGOOC v. ERLINA
A.M. No. P-04-1857 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1429-P), 16 March 2005
• Held: The law mandates that in the execution of a money judgment, the
judgment debtor shall pay either in cash, certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter.
Nowhere does the law mention promissory notes as a form of payment. The
only exception is when such form of payment is acceptable to the judgment
debtor. But it was obviously not acceptable to complainant, otherwise she
would not have filed this case against respondent sheriff.
DAGOOC v. ERLINA
A.M. No. P-04-1857 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1429-P), 16 March 2005
• If the judgment debtor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified
bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee,
the money judgment shall be satisfied by levying on the properties of the
judgment debtor.
Section 10. Execution Of Judgments For Specific Act
When the party refuses to comply: The court can appoint some other person at the
expense of the disobedient party and the act done shall have the same effect as if the
required party performed it. The court, by an order, may also divest title of any party in
real or personal property situated in the Philippines and vest it in others, which shall
have the same effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law.
Note: Habere Facias Possessionem – the name of the process commonly resorted
to by the successful party in an action of ejectment, for the purpose of being placed
by the sheriff in the actual possession of the land recovered.
General Rule: The judgment debtor cannot be cited in contempt of court. Generally,
contempt is not a remedy to enforce a judgment.
Exceptions:
a. Refusal to perform a particular act or Special Judgments under ROC, RULE 39,
Sec. 11 where he may be cited in contempt; and
b. In case of the provisional remedy of support pendente lite under ROC, RULE 61,
the judgment debtor may still be cited for contempt even if the decision is not a
special judgment and requires the latter to pay money.
Writ of Possession
• In the case of LZK Holdings v. Planters Development Bank (G.R. No. 167998, 27
April 2007), a Writ of Possession is defined as a writ of execution employed to
enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to
enter the land and give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgment.
It may be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage
under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118.
• In the case of Joven v. CA (G.R. No. 80739, 20 August 1992), it was discussed
that the RTC may issue as a matter of course in cases of extrajudicial foreclosure
of mortgage a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser during the redemption
period, provided that the proper motion has been filed, a bond is approved, and
no third person is involved.
Writ of Demolition
• It can be found on Section 10 (d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
• In the case of Guario v. Ragsac (A.M. No. P=-08-2571, 27 August 2009), it was
discussed by the Court Administrator that “if demolition is necessary, there must
be a hearing on the motion filed and with due notices to the parties for the
issuance of a special order of demolition.” It explained that this requirement of a
special order of demolition is “based on rudiments of justice and fair play.” The
immediate demolition therefore of any property and destroyed without an order of
demolition will amount to grave abuse of authority.
SECTION 11. EXECUTION OF SPECIAL JUDGMENTS
Special Judgment is one which can only be complied with by the judgment obligor
because of his personal qualifications or circumstances.
When judgment requires the performance of any act other than judgment for money
and judgments for specific act, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to
the writ.
The writ of execution shall be served upon the party required to obey the same and
such party may be punished for contempt if he disobeys.
But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall be exempt from
execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its price or upon a judgment of
foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
SECTION 14. RETURN OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION
Upon the issuance of the writ of execution, the same must be enforced within 30 days
and returned to the court after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the
judgment cannot be enforced in full within 30 days, the officer must make a report to
the court every 30 days thereafter on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment
is satisfied in full. The lifetime of such will correspond to the period within which the
judgment may be enforced by motion, that is, within 5 years from entry thereof.
The remedies are cumulative and may be resorted to by the third party claimant
independently of or separately from the others (Spouses Sy v. Discaya, G.R. No.
86301, January 23, 1990).
If the winning party files a bond, it is only then that the sheriff can take the property in
his possession. If there is no bond, the sale cannot proceed.
Note: The officer shall not be liable for damages to any third-party claimant if such
bond is filed for the taking or keeping of the property.
However, the judgment obligee can claim damages against a third-party claimant who
filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, and such damages may be recovered by
the judgment obligee in the same or separate action.
Note: The timing of the filing of the third party claim is important because the timing
determines the remedies that a third party is allowed to file. A third party claimant
under Section 16 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may vindicate his
claim to the property in a separate action, because intervention is no longer allowed
as judgment has already been rendered. A third party claimant under Section 14 of
Rule 57 of the same Rules, on the other hand, may vindicate his claim to the property
by intervention because he has a legal interest in the matter in litigation (Fort
Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Yllas Lending, Corp. G.R. No. 158997, October 6,
2008).
Actual and punitive damages may be recovered by motion in the same action.
SECTION 18. NO SALE IF JUDGMENT AND COSTS PAID
At any time before the sale of property on execution, the judgment obligor may
prevent the sale by paying the amount required by the execution and the costs that
have been incurred therein.
1. At public auction;
2. To the highest bidder;
3. To start at the exact time fixed in the notice.
After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution, no more shall be
sold and any excess shall be promptly delivered to the judgment obligor or his
authorized representative, unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the
court.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ORDINARY SALE AND SALE IN JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE
But the court may order the refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount of
such loss, with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he disobeys the order. The
officer may thereafter reject any subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to
pay.
Note: Confirmation of the sale is not needed unlike in judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
The certificate of sale is merely provisional (Raymundo v. Sunico, G.R. No. 8241,
September 27, 1913).
Exception to the Exception: The rule that you can question the validity of the
auction sale if the price obtained is shockingly inadequate does not apply when the
property sold is real property (Ramos v. Pablo, G.R. No. L-53692, November 26,
1986).
Reason: The lower the purchase price, the easier it would be for the judgment
obligor to redeem his property.
SECTION 28. TIME AND MANNER OF, AND AMOUNTS PAYABLE ON,
SUCCESSIVE REDEMPTIONS; NOTICE TO BE GIVEN AND FILED.
Redemption: This right of redemption is transferable and may be voluntarily sold, but
it cannot be levied upon by the judgment creditor so as to deprive the judgment
debtor of any further rights to the property.
Right of Redemption:
1. Personal Property – none; Sale is absolute.
2. Real Property – There is a right of redemption.
Note: If his lien is prior to the judgment, he is not a redemptioner because his interests
in his lien are fully protected (relate to Section 12).
1. By the judgment obligor - Within one (1) year from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale.
2. By the first redemptioner - Within one (1) year from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale; or
3. By all subsequent redemptioners - Within sixty (60) days from the last
redemption, provided that the judgment debtor has not exercised his right of
redemption.
Note: Written notice of any redemption must be given to the officer who made the sale
and a duplicate filed with the registry of deeds of the place, and if any assessments or
taxes are paid by the redemptioner or if he has or acquires any lien other than that upon
which the redemption was made, notice thereof must in like manner be given to the
officer and filed with the registry of deeds; if such notice be not filed, the property may
be redeemed without paying such assessments, taxes, or liens.
General Rule: In all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one
(1) year from the date of the registration of the sale to redeem the property. If the
judgment obligor redeems, no further redemption is allowed and he is restored to his
estate (Sec. 29).
Exception: Sec. 47 of the General Banking Act provides that in case of extrajudicial
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage notwithstanding Act 3135, judicial persons shall
have the right to redeem the property until, but not after, the registration of the
certificate of foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds which in no case
shall be more than three (3) months after the foreclosure, whichever is earlier.
Note: The periods for redemption are not extendible or interrupted. The parties may,
however, agree on a longer period, in such case, it would be a conventional
redemption (Lazo v. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-27365,
January 30,1970).
The parties cannot enter into an agreement to reduce the period of redemption. Any
agreement to that effect is a void agreement.
REDEMPTION PRICE (Sec. 28)
The redemption price for subsequent redemption shall be the same (redemption
price becomes higher and higher).
May redemption be paid in any form other than cash? Yes. The rule is construed
liberally in allowing redemption (aid rather than defeat the right) and it has been
allowed in the case of a cashier’s check, certified bank checks and even checks.
The offer to redeem must be accompanied with a bona fide tender or delivery of the
redemption price.
However, a formal offer to redeem with a tender is not necessary where the right to
redeem is exercised through the filing of a complaint to redeem in the courts, within
the period to redeem.
Illustration: Supposing there are three (3) redemptioners and the first redemptioner
redeemed the property at the last day of the 1-year period. The second redemptioner
may still redeem the property within sixty (60) days from the last redemption which
may still be redeemed within the same period by the third redemptioner. The period of
redemption is effectively extended by one hundred twenty (120) days. In this case,
there can be a valid legal redemption beyond the one (1)-year redemption period.
SECTION 29. EFFECT OF REDEMPTION BY JUDGMENT OBLIGOR, AND A
CERTIFICATE TO BE DELIVERED AND RECORDED THEREUPON; TO WHOM
PAYMENTS ON REDEMPTION MADE
The person to whom the redemption payment is made must execute and deliver to
him a notarized Certificate of Redemption.
Such certificate must be filed and recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in
which the property is situated and the registrar of deeds must note the record thereof
on the margin of the record of the certificate of sale.
The payments mentioned in this and the last preceding sections may be made to the:
1. purchaser;
2. redemptioner; or
3. for him to the officer who made the sale.
Redemptioner must produce to the officer, or person from whom he seeks to redeem,
and serve with his notice to the officer:
1. A copy of the judgment or final order under which he claims the right to redeem
certified by the clerk of court wherein the judgment or final order is entered; or
2. If he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien, a memorandum of the record
thereof, certified by the Register of Deeds; or
3. An original or certified copy of any assignment necessary to establish his claim;
and
4. An affidavit executed by him or his agent showing the amount then actually due
on the lien.
Note: When the original owner wants to redeem, there is no need for him to prove his
right as a judgment debtor.
He is thereby substituted to and acquires all the rights, title, interest and claim of the
judgment obligor to the property at the time of levy. The purchaser’s right retroact to
the date of levy.
Two (2) Documents which the Sheriff Executes in case of Real Property:
1. Certificate of Sale – After the auction sale, he will execute in favor of the
purchaser the certificate of sale under Section 25. From the registration of the
said certificate, the one year period of redemption starts.
2. Deed of Conveyance – If after one (1) year there is no redemption a deed of
conveyance is executed (Sec. 33).
The deed of conveyance is what operates to transfer to the purchaser whatever rights
the judgment debtor had in the property. The certificate of sale after execution sale
merely is a memorial of the fact of sale and does not operate as a conveyance.
The purchaser acquires no better right than what the judgment debtor had in the
property levied upon. Thus, if the judgment debtor had already transferred the
property executed prior to the levy and no longer has an interest in the property, the
execution purchaser acquires no right (Pacheco v. CA, G.R. No. L-48689, August 31,
1987). The remedy of the purchaser will be that in Sec. 34.
When a third person is in possession: The procedure is for the court to order a
hearing and determine the nature of such adverse possession.
2. He may cause examination of the debtor of the judgment debtor as to any debt
owed by him or to any property of the judgment debtor in his possession (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 37);
4. If the court finds property of the judgment debtor or money due him, not exempt
from execution, either in his own hands or that of any person, the court may order
the property applied to the satisfaction of the judgment (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 40);
5. If the court finds the earnings of the judgment debtor for his personal serviced are
more than sufficient for his family’s needs, it may order payment in fixed monthly
installments. Failure to pay any such installments when due without good excuse,
may be punished by indirect contempt (ROC, RULE 39,Sec. 40);
6. The court may appoint a receiver for the property of the judgment debtor not exempt
from execution or forbid a transfer or disposition or interference with such property.
(ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 41 in relation to ROC, RULE 59, Sec. 1, par. (c));
7. If the court finds that the judgment debtor has an ascertainable interest in real
property either as mortgagor, mortgagee, or otherwise, and his interest can be
ascertained without controversy, the court may order the sale of such interest.
(ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 42);
8. If the person alleged to have the property of the judgment debtor or the reason
indebted to him, claims an adverse interest in the property, or denies the debt, the
court may authorize the judgment-creditor to institute an action to recover the
property, forbid its transfer and may punish disobedience for contempt (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 43).
Note: The person indebted to the judgment obligor may pay to the sheriff holding the
writ of execution the amount of his debt or so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy the judgment, and the sheriff’s receipt shall be a sufficient discharge for the
amount so paid or directed to be credited by the judgment obligee on the executtion.
Two parts:
1. Res Judicata – also known as bar by former judgment or direct estoppel by
judgment. It covers paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 47.
2. Conclusiveness of Judgment – also known as estoppel by verdict or estoppel
by record, or collateral estoppel by judgment or preclusion of issue or rule of auter
action pendant. It covers paragraph (c) of Rule 47.
General Rule: A dismissal without a trial is not an adjudication upon the merits
Exceptions:
a. Dismissal with prejudice on the ground of willful and deliberate forum shopping
(ROC, RULE 7, Sec. 5);
b. Dismissal with prejudice on the ground of res judicata, prescription, payment, or
unenforceability under the statue of frauds (ROC, RULE 16, Sec. 5);
c. Second order of dismissal on notice of the plaintiff (ROC, RULE 17, Sec. 1);
d. Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with the rules or an order of the court
(ROC, RULE 17, Sec. 3);
e. Dismissal with prejudice for failure to attend the pre-trial or submit a pre-trial brief
(ROC, RULE 18, Sec. 5 and 6).
There is also identity of parties even if the defendant in the first case becomes the
plaintiff, and vice-versa (HSBC v. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. L-8437, March 23, 1915).
b. Identity of subject matter – e.g. the actions involve the same contract, promissory
note or land;
c. Identity of cause of action – There is identity of causes of action when the two
actions are based on the same delict or wrong committed by the defendant even if the
remedies are different (Quiogue v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-13159, February 2, 1962).
The rule is that a mortage-creditor has a single cause of action against a mortgagor-
debtor, that is, to recover the debt. The mortgagor-creditor has the option of either
filing a personal action for collection of sum of money or instituting a real action to
foreclosure on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative and each
remedy is complete by itself. If the mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate
mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the debt, and vice versa (Flores v.
Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011).
A rule that would authorize the plaintiff to bring a personal action against the debtor and
simultaneously or successively another action against the mortgaged property, would
result not only in multiplicity of suits so offensive to justice and obnoxious to law and
equity, but also in subjecting the defendant to the vexation of being sued in the place of
his residence or of the residence of the plaintiff, and them again in the place where the
property lies (Id).
Under the doctrine of res judicata, no matter how erroneous a judgment may be, once it
becomes final, it cannot be corrected.
Thus, it has the effect of preclusion only of issues. The parties in both actions may be
the same but the causes of action are different.
• There is no doubt that the judgment on appeal relative to Civil Case No. 94-1610 (that
rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591) was a final judgment. Not only did it dispose of the
case on the merits; it also became executory as a consequence of the denial of
FEBTCs motion for reconsideration and appeal.Neither is there room to doubt that the
judgment in Civil Case No. 94-1610 was on the merits for it determined the rights and
liabilities of the parties. To recall, it was ruled that: (1) DATICOR overpaid by P5.3
million; (2) FEBTC was bound to refund the excess payment but because DATICOR’s
claim against FEBTC was only P965,000, the court could only grant so much as the
relief prayed for; and (3) PDCP has no further claim against DATICOR because its
obligation had already been paid in full. Right or wrong, that judgment bars another
case based upon the same cause of action.
• As to the requisite of identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, it cannot
be gainsaid that the first case, Civil Case No. 94-1610, was brought by petitioners to
recover an alleged overpayment of P5.3 million, P965,000 from FEBTC and P4.335
million from PDCP. On the other hand, Civil Case No. 00-540, filed by the same
petitioners, was for the recovery of P4.335 million, which is admittedly part of the P5.3
million earlier sought to be recovered in Civil Case No. 94-1610. This time, the action
was brought solely against FEBTC which in turn impleaded PDCP as a third party
defendant.
Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No 150134, 31 October 2007
• In the two cases, petitioners imputed to FEBTC the same alleged wrongful act of
mistakenly receiving and refusing to return an amount in excess of what was
due it in violation of their right to a refund. The same facts and evidence
presented in the first case, Civil Case No. 94-1610, were the very same facts and
evidence that petitioners presented in Civil Case No. 00-540.
• Accordingly, the trial court correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 00-540 on the
ground of res judicata. The judgment in Civil Case No. 94-1610 operated as a bar
to Civil Case No. 00-540.
Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No 150134, 31 October 2007
• Bar by former judgment makes the judgment rendered in the first case an
absolute bar to the subsequent action since that judgment is conclusive not
only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as to any
other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could
have been adjudged therein. It is in this concept that the term res judicata is
more commonly and generally used as a ground for a motion to dismiss in
civil cases.
Note: This rule does not apply to resolutions rendered in connection with the case
wherein no rationale has been expounded on the merits of that action (Jarantilla v. CA,
G.R. No. 80194, March 21, 1969).
Immutability of Judgments
Once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The
decisions of the court must be immutable at some definite period of time, no matter
how erroneous a judgment may be. Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.
(See Rule 36 for Exceptions)
Effect of Foreign Judgments: Provided that the foreign tribunal had jurisdiction:
1. In case of judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon
the title to the thing; or
Where to file
The suit upon the foreign judgment is considered as one incapable of pecuniary
estimation and therefore it must be filed in the RTC.
There are two ways of giving effect to a foreign judgment: (a) an ordinary action to
enforce the foreign judgment may be filed in court or (b) it may be pleaded in an answer
or a motion to dismiss (2 HERRERA, supra at 531).
Rule 40 and Notice of appeal within 15 days from notice Period to file notice of appeal is non-
Rule 41 of judgment or of the denial of the extendible.
appellant’s MR/MNT
Reason: It is very simple to prepare a
When a record on appeal is required – notice to appeal.
within 30 days from notice of judgment or of
the denial of the appellant’s MR/MNT Period to file a record on appeal may be
extended provided the motion for extension
Habeas Corpus – notice of appeal is filed thereof is filed within the original 30 day
within 48 hours from notice of judgment or period.
denial of MR/MNT.
Reason: Preparation of the record on
appeal may take time for it may require
compilation of voluminous records.
Rule 42 Petition for review – within 15 days from May be extended for 15 days upon proper
notice of the decision sought to be reviewed motion and the payment of the full amount
or of denial of petitioner’s MR/MNT. of the docket and other lawful fees and
deposit for costs before the expiration of the
original 15 day period. No further extension
shall be granted except for the most
compelling reasons and in no case to
exceed 15 days.
Governing Rule Period to Appeal Extension Allowed
Rule 45 Petition for review on certiorari – within On motion duly filed and served, with full
15 days from notice of the award, judgment, payment of the docket and other lawful fees
final order or resolution, or from the date of and the deposit for costs before the
its last publication or the denial of the expiration of the original 15 day period, the
petitioner’s MR/MNT SC may for justifiable reasons grant an
extension of thirty (30) days only within
which to file the petition.
2. In criminal cases, when the RTC imposes death penalty, the Court of Appeals
shall automatically review the judgment (ROC, RULE 122, Sec. 3, par. (d)). If the
Court of Appeals finds that death penalty should be imposed, the CA shall not render
judgment but certify and elevate the case to the Supreme Court for review (ROC,
RULE124, Sec. 13, par. (a)).
Note: Only final judgments or orders can be appealed as distinguised from
interlocutory judgments or orders which are not appealable (ROC, RULE 41, Sec. 1).
The right to appeal is neither a part of due process but a mere statutory privilege that
has to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the
rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost (Stolt-Nielsen v. NLRC, G.R. NO.
147623, December 13, 2005, Beatingo v. Gasis, G.R. No. 179641, February 9, 2011).
Thank you!