Rule 39

EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND

EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

Rule 39 is on the subject of Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments. This is the longest rule in the
study of Civil Procedure. Take note that there are 48 Sections. Let us first review the fundamentals.
Q: Define execution.
A: EXECUTION is the remedy provided by law for the enforcement of a judgment. (21 Am. Jur. 18) It is the
fruit and the end of the suit and is very aptly called the life of the law (PAL vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA
557).
It would be useless if there is judgment but you cannot enforce the same. When you receive the decision of
court in your favor, what will you do with that? If there is no way to enforce that decision, i-laminate mo na
lang yan. Useless eh!
Q: Who will enforce the judgment?
A: The very same court which rendered the judgment.
Q: How is execution generally done?
A: It is generally done by filing a motion for execution by the prevailing party and the court will then issue
an order of execution, which will be followed with a writ of execution, and the sheriff will enforce the
judgment.
So, we file a motion in court after the judgment has become final and executory.
Q: How can the court issue the order when it has already lost jurisdiction over the case? because from what
we have learned here is that, one of the effects of the finality of judgment is that the court loses jurisdiction
over the case. And when the court loses jurisdiction, it can no longer act on the case. So, how can it still
issue orders in that case when actually, once the judgment becomes final and executory, the trial court loses
jurisdiction over the case and it can no longer act in that case?
A: What is meant by that statement is that, the court can no longer change the judgment. That
is why new trial and reconsideration is not anymore available in this stage. The judgment is
beyond the power of the court to change or alter.
BUT definitely the court can act on that case for the purpose of enforcing its judgment because
it is absurd to claim that a trial court has the power to try and hear a case but once the
judgment has already become final, it has no more power to enforce it. If you will really describe
jurisdiction in its complete aspect, we can say jurisdiction is the power of the court to act on
the case, to try, to decide and to enforce its judgment. That would be more complete. Because
enforcement is part of the court's jurisdiction.
Q: Against whom shall the execution issue?
A: Generally, execution can issue only against a (losing) party to the case and not against one who is a
complete stranger because majority of judgments are in personam. They are only enforceable against the
parties themselves or their successors-in-interest people who derive their rights from him. And a
judgement can never be enforced against a complete stranger who never had his day in court. (Cruzcosa vs.
Concepcion, 101 Phil. 146; Castaeda vs. De Leon, 55 O.G. 625, Jan. 26, 1959; Bacolod vs. Enriquez, 55 O.G.
10545, Dec. 21, 1959)
Q: What portion in the decision is normally the subject of execution ?
A: It is the dispositiveportion the WHEREFORE that is going to be enforced. (Robles vs. Timario, 58
O.G. 1507, Feb. 19, 1962)

CLASSES OF EXECUTION
Q: What are the classes of execution under the law?
A: The following:
I.
1.)
2.)

As to their nature:
COMPULSORY execution known as Execution as a Matter of Right (Section 1)
DISCRETIONARY execution known as Execution Pending Appeal (Section 2)

II.
1.)
2.)

As to how it is enforced (Section 6):

EXECUTION BY MOTION
EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION

COMPULSORY EXECUTION
(Execution as a matter of right)

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

FIRST INSTANCE: NO APPEAL, JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL
Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on
motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration
of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be
applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith
certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced
and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires,
direct the court of origin to issue the writ of examination.
Q: What are the conditions for compulsory execution?
A: The following are the conditions:
1.)
FIRST CONDITION: If a judgment has disposed already of the action or proceeding then
it can be executed ;
2.)
SECOND CONDITION: The period to appeal has expired and no appeal has been
filed/taken from the judgment.
Under the first condition, if a judgment has disposed already of the action or proceeding then it can be
executed because if the judgment or order has not yet disposed of the action or proceeding, that is called an
interlocutory judgment or order.
One of the effects of finality of a judgment under Rule 36 is that the prevailing party is entitled to have the
judgment executed as a matter of right. And it is the ministerial duty of the court to execute its own
judgment. So once the judgment has become final, all that the winner or prevailing party has to do is to file
an action in court for execution, the court has to issue.
When the law says it is a matter of right upon a judgment or order that disposes the action or proceeding, it
means that after the judgment was rendered, there is nothing more for the court to do because its job is

over. Therefore, if there is something more that the court can do, as a rule, you cannot execute. That is why
conditional judgments, incomplete judgments cannot be executed.
Under the second condition, we must wait for the period to appeal to expire before we can move for
execution. So, if the period to appeal has not yet expired, then we cannot execute the judgment. As corollary
to that rule we have this question:
Q: May the court refuse to execute a judgment on the ground that the judgement was wrong or erroneous?
A: NO, because it is a matter of and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution upon a
final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty of the court to execute which is compellable
by mandamus. (Ebero vs. Caizares, 79 Phil. 152) The principle is: No matter how erroneous a
judgment may be, so long as the lower court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter in litigation, (in short the judgment is valid), the said judgment is enforceable by
execution once it becomes final and executory. The error also becomes final. If it is erroneous,
the remedy is to appeal, otherwise the error becomes final as well.
In execution, if you are not careful, there are lawyers who are very good in thwarting an execution where a
series of maneuvers are utilized - we can still be delayed by questioning this and that and sometimes courts
are unwitting accomplices. That is why in the 1994 of
PELAYO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
230 SCRA 606
HELD: We have time and again ruled that courts should never allow themselves to be a party to maneuvers
intended to delay the execution of final decisions. They must nip in the bud any dilatory maneuver
calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice, fair play and prompt implementation of final and
executory judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an
effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through
a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme
calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should
frown upon any attempt to prolong them.

GENERAL RULE: Judgment is enforceable by execution once it becomes final and executory.
EXCEPTIONS: (WOLFSON vs. DEL ROSARIO, 46 Phil. 41)
1.
When there has been a change in the situation of the parties, which makes the
execution inequitable;
2.
When it appears that the controversy has never been submitted to the judgment of
the court;
3.
When the judgment was novated by subsequent agreement of the parties;
4.
When it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued;
5.
When the writ of execution is defective in substance;
6.
When the writ of execution is issued against the wrong party; and
7.
When the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied.

[1] WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES
WHICH MAKE THE EXECUTION INEQUITABLE. (Supervening Fact Doctrine)
One of the most important exceptions is the first one: When there has been a change in the situation of the
parties which make the execution inequitable. Meaning, from the time na nagkaroon ng final judgment up to
the present, there has been a change in the situation of the parties so that if we will execute, the judgment

becomes inequitable already. So, this is just another way of saying that there has been a SUPERVENING
EVENT that happened which makes execution inequitable.
EXAMPLE: There was a case where A filed a case to eject B from his property and B lost the case and there
was a judgment ordering him to vacate the property of A. But while the case was going on, A mortgaged his
property to the bank. In the meantime, he failed to pay his loan and the bank foreclosed the mortgage. So
the property was sold at public auction. And at the auction sale, B, the one occupying it, bought the property.
The owner now is B. But there is a final judgment ejecting him. Now, shall we insist on the judgment ejecting
B? No because B is now the owner. The fact that B became the owner is a supervening event.
PHIL. VETERANS BANK (PVB) vs. IAC
178 SCRA 645
NOTE: There was a time before that the PVB was closed for 5 to 6 years because I think they have some
problems. So the Central Bank has to take over. The Central Bank has ordered to stop the operation placed
under receivership, the Central Bank will control. Now under the Central Bank Law, once the Central Bank
takes over the control of a private bank, all its assets has to be preserved. No assets will be sold or disposed
of.
FACTS: There was somebody who sued PVB, and PVB lost. So there was a judgment which became final. And
the winner asked the court to execute. Practically, you have to levy on the property of the bank. In the
meantime, the PVB was placed under receivership, where under the law, it cannot be disposed of because it
is under the control of the Central Bank.
ISSUE: Can the prevailing party insist on the enforcement of the judgment and get and levy the property of
the PVB?
HELD: NO. The placement of the bank under receivership is a SUPERVENING EVENT. Once a decision has
become final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution, admits certain
exceptions. The fact that petitioner is placed under receivership is a supervening event that renders a
judgment notwithstanding its finality unenforceable by attachment or execution.
SAMPAGUITA GARMENTS CORP. vs. NLRC
233 SCRA 260
FACT: An employee was terminated by his employer on the ground of theft. He stole company property. The
management filed also a case of theft against the employee. But in the meantime the employee also filed a
labor case against the employer for illegal dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with back wages. After
hearing, the NLRC ruled that there was illegal termination and ordered the reinstatement of the employee
and payment of backwages. The NLRC decision became final. In the meantime, the accused was convicted in
the criminal case for theft and ordered to go to prison.
ISSUE: What happens now to the final judgment of the NLRC reinstating the employee?
HELD: An employees conviction for theft, which was affirmed by the RTC and the CA, is a
SUPERVENING CAUSE that renders unjust and inequitable the NLRC decision mandating the
employees reinstatement with backwages.
Take note however that for the supervening event to apply, the supervening event must happen
after the judgment has become final and executory. Not that the supervening event happened
while the case was going on. If the case is going on and something happened which you believe would
make the decision against you unfair, your duty is to bring it to the attention of the court so that the court
deciding the case would take that into consideration. In the case of

VALENSONA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

226 SCRA 36
HELD: While the rule is that a stay of execution of a final judgment may be authorized if necessary to
accomplish the ends of justice, as for instance, where there has been a change in the situation of the parties
which makes such execution inequitable, nevertheless the said rule cannot be invoked when the supposed
change in the circumstances of the parties took place while the case was pending, for the reason that there
was then no excuse for not bringing to the attention of the court the fact or circumstance that affects the
outcome of the case.
The ruling in VALENZOLA was reiterated in
ABOITIZ vs. TRAJANO
278 SCRA 387 [1997]
HELD: We are of course well aware of the rule authorizing the court to modify or alter a judgment even
after the same has become executory, whenever circumstances transpire rendering its execution unjust
and inequitable. However, this rule, we must emphasize, applies only to cases where the facts or
circumstances authorizing such modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final
executory.
[3] WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS NOVATED BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT .
QUESTION: Can the parties enter into a compromise agreement when there is already a decision?
ANSWER: YES. Compromise agreement is welcome anytime before the case is filed, while the case is going
on, while the case is on appeal.
Q: Now suppose there is a decision in my favor against you and then you approach me and say, Pwede ba
pag-usapan na lang natin ito? Sige okay. Then we arrive at another agreement which we signed, where
the agreement is different from the decision in my favor. Can it be done?
A: Yes, I can waive my rights under the judgment. There is now a new agreement between us.
Q: Can I execute on the original judgment?
A: No more, because the new agreement novated the judgment. Take note that in case of
novation, the new obligation must be totally incompatible with the first obligation.
A related question:
Q: Can one court by injunction or restraining order stop the execution of a judgment of another court?
A: GENERAL RULE: NO, because that will amount to interference.
EXCEPTIONS:(when the enforcement of a final judgment may be stopped by way of injunction)
1.)

Rule 38, Section 5:

Rule 38, Section 5: Preliminary injunction pending proceedings. The court in which the petition is
filed, may grant such preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the
rights of the parties, upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party,
conditioned that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon
the merits, he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by
reason of the issuance of such injunction or the other proceedings following the petition; but
such injunction shall not operate to discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party
may have acquired upon the property of the petitioner.

In effect, there is a final and executory judgment but the court will issue an injunction to stop this
enforcement because of the pendency of a petition for relief from judgment.
2.)

When there is an action for annulment of judgment of the RTC filed in the CA.

The CA may issue a writ of preliminary injunction annulment of judgment, certiorari, or prohibition cases
where the CA will issue a preliminary injunction to stop the RTC from enforcing its judgment pending the
resolution of whether its judgment was rendered in excess or without jurisdiction- annulment of judgement,
certiorari, or prohibition cases where the CA will issue a preliminary injunction to stop the RTC from enforcing
its judgement pending the resolution of whether its judgement was rendered in excess or without
jurisdiction.
So, those are the exceptions.
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;
SECOND INSTANCE: CA AFFIRMS THE RTC JUDGMENT
Q: Is there any other instances where a judgement maybe executed as a matter of right?
A: YES, when the losing party appealed the RTC decision to the CA and the CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC. Kung may appeal, the judgment is not final, you cannot execute. The case is now in the CA, the CA
decided in your favor, the RTC judgment was affirmed and the CA decision has also become final and
executory. So you can now execute.
Q: How do you execute in that situation?
A: That is now covered by the second and third paragraphs of Section 1:
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be
applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith
certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced
and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires,
direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
Now the usual procedure no, when you win in the RTC and the losing party appeals, the records of the case
will be brought to the CA. Later, there will be a CA decision: The judgment of the RTC of Davao City is
affirmed in toto. Now you have to wait for the CA judgment to become final because that may be appealed
further to the SC. If the judgment becomes final, the clerk of court will make an entry of final judgment of the
CA decision. Normally after that, the records from the CA will be returned to Davao. It will be sent back to the
court of origin. Once the record is back, the RTC is supposed to tell you, the records are here. That is the
time you file a motion for execution. You will file it in the RTC.
But sometimes, it takes months for the CA to return the records. That is the trouble with the CA. It takes
them several months, when the case is appealed, before they tell you that the record is here.
In the PRESENT rules, this is taken from the SC Circular 24-94 which took effect in 1994, hindi na kailangan
hintayin ang records na bumalik dito. Just get a certified copy of the CA decision, get a copy of the entry of
final judgment of the CA. You just attach a copy of the CA judgment and a certificate from the CA clerk of
court that it is already final and executory - meaning, that there is already entry of final judgment. This is
much faster than waiting for the records to be returned.

The first paragraph in Section 1 normally deals with judgment usually becoming final and executory in the
RTC. The rest of the paragraph deals with appeal which affirmed the decision of the RTC. So that is the
procedure for execution both cases, execution is a matter of right because judgment is final and executory.
The alternative which is the last paragraph, in the interest of justice, you can file also your motion for
execution in the CA and the CA will direct the RTC to issue the writ of execution.

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

THIRD INSTANCE: CASES UNDER SECTION 4
Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?
A: This is the third instance found in Section 4:
Sec. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. -IRAS Judgments in action for injunction, receivership,
accounting and support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to
be immediately executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by
an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom,
the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or
granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered
proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party. (4a)
GENERAL RULE: If there is an appeal, the judgment will be stayed.
EXCEPTIONS (Under Section 4): Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting,
support, judgment declared to be immediately executory.
So, actions for injunction, receivership, accounting, support. So for example: theres an injunction from the
court: The defendant is enjoined from trespassing on plaintiffs land. Then you appealed. So, the decision
is not final. Now, if the judgment is not yet final, what will you do in the meantime. So, youll say; Ill just
continue to trespass because anyway the judgment is not yet final. Ah hindi yan pwede. Even if the
judgment is not yet final, even if it is on appeal, you have to honor the injunction. So, in effect, it is a matter
of right.
Another Example: An order directing you to render an accounting. Take the case of recovery of possession of
land with accounting of the income that you received. After trial, Okey, Defendant, you turn over the
possession of the property to the plaintiff and you render an accounting. Appeal ka. Pag appeal mo, there
must be an accounting in the meantime.
So, if there is a judgment for an action for support, you must comply with the judgment even before it
becomes final. So, the amendment now includes support and this phrase, such other judgments as are now
or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory. Any judgment which is declared by law to be
immediately executory has to be enforced even before it becomes final and executory even if there is an
appeal.
Q: Give an example of a law which declares a judgement to be immediately executory?
A: The best example would be the Summary Procedure where a decision of the MTC in a civil case is
appealed to the RTC, the decision of the RTC is immediately executory even if we go to the CA. It has to be
executed unless the appellate court will stop the execution in the meantime.

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT;

FOURTH INSTANCE: FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Q: Is there another instance when execution becomes a matter of right?
A: YES, under Rule 70 a judgment of the MTC in a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case is immediately
executory (i.e. subject to immediate execution) even if it is not yet final and executory.
TO SUMMARIZE:
Q: When is execution a matter of right?
A: In the following:
1.)
Section 1, paragraph 1 no appeal; judgment becomes final;
2.)
Section 1, paragraph 2 there is an appeal; once the CA judgment becomes final;
3.)
Section 4 Judgment in an action for injunction, receivership, accounting, support,
judgment declared to be immediately executory; and
4.)
Rule 70 Judgments in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases.
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
(Execution pending appeal)
Section 2. Discretionary execution.
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. On motion of the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in
the possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the
time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order the execution of a
judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed
in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after
due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several, separate or partial judgment may
be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order
pending appeal.
Well now go to the second type of execution - discretionary or execution pending appeal. Discretionary,
meaning, the court may or may not order the execution.
Here, the prevailing party files a motion for execution within the 15 days period. So in other words, the
judgment is not yet final and executory, normally, within the period to appeal.

Q: Normally, can you file a motion for execution within the period to appeal?
A: As a rule, you cannot because it is not yet final. But by EXCEPTION, Section 2 allows you,
provided, according to the last paragraph, discretionary execution may only issue upon good
reason to be stated in the special order after due hearing.
Q: Therefore, what are the requisites for discretionary execution?
A: The following are the requisites for discretionary execution:
1.)
There must be a motion filed by the prevailing party;
2.)
There must be a notice of the motion given to the adverse party; and
3.)
There must be good reasons to execute to be stated in a special order after due
hearing.

Why discretionary? Because the court may or may not grant the execution depending on whether there is a
good reason or no good reason. Unlike in Section 1, when the judgment has become final and executory, you
do not have to cite any good reason. The only reason for the execution is that the judgment becomes final
and executory. But in the case of execution pending appeal, you must justify it the party must convince the
court to grant the execution. And remember according to the SC, execution under Section 2 is not the
general rule, that is the exception.
The requirement of good reason is important and must not be overlooked, because if the judgment is
executed and, on appeal, the same is reversed, although there are provisions for restitution, oftentimes
damages may arise which cannot be fully compensated. Accordingly, execution should be granted only when
these considerations are clearly outweighed by superior circumstances demanding urgency, and the above
provision requires a statement of those circumstances as a security for their existence. (City of Bacolod vs.
Enriquez, 101 Phil. 644)
It is even a misnomer execution pending appeal. For all you know, the losing party may or may not appeal.
It is actually called execution pending appeal because you are filing the motion within the period to appeal.
Q: What will happen if there are no good reasons?
A: The writ of execution is void because it does not state why you are executing a judgment. (AFWU vs.
Estipona, L-17934, Dec. 28, 1961) And remember that execution pending appeal is the exception rather than
the rule. And there is a possibility that the judgment in your favor will be reversed on appeal.
Q: Suppose we will execute the judgment pending appeal and the appeal will proceed then it will be
reversed, what will happen then?
A: If that happens, then there is Section 5 eh di, magsaulian tayo if it is reversed totally, partially, or
annulled on appeal or otherwise. There will be MUTUAL RESTITUTION. That is the remedy under Section 5.
But the trouble is ang hirap man ng saulian, eh. There could not be a 100% perfect restitution. That is the
same asking the question, how can you unscramble an unscrambled egg? This is one reason why execution
pending appeal is not favored.
Section 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. - Where the executed judgment is reversed
totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court, may, on motion, issue
such orders and justice may warrant under the circumstances (5a)
Q: Give examples of GOOD REASONS which would justify execution pending appeal.
A: Following are example of good reasons:
1.)
When there is danger of the judgment becoming INEFFECTUAL. (Scottish Union vs.
Macadaeg, 91 Phil. 891);
In this case of MACADAEG, the plaintiff sued a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. So it has
assets no?The plaintiff sued the foreign company and he won, there was award, but hindi pa final. In the
meantime, plaintiff learned the foreign company is going to stop completely its business in the Philippines
and they are going to send back all their assets abroad. Sabi ng na plaintiff: Aba delikado ako. Suppose
after the appeal, I still win and I will start running after the defendant na wala naman dito. It has no more
office, no operations, no assets; but in the meantime meron pa? So the plaintiff filed a motion for execution
pending appeal. If we will wait for the judgment to become final, by that time the judgment will become
ineffectual.
2.)
OLD AGE; There was a case an old woman files a case against somebody to recover her land
from the defendant which the latter has deprived her of the property for years. The defendant enjoyed the
property and the fruits. After years of litigation she won, she was about 80. And then mag-aappeal pa yong

kalaban. The old woman filed a motion in court asking for immediate execution even if the judgment is not
yet final on the argument that I have been deprived for years of the possession and of the property; and
there is a probable appeal which may take another couple of years. By the time I win the case on appeal, I
may already be dead. I have not enjoyed the property and the fruits. The SC said, all right that is a good
reason.
3.)

Where the appeal is for the purpose of DELAY;

Q: How about the argument that the intended appeal is dilatory? It is only intended to prolong the supposed
execution and therefore the losing party has a chance to win the appeal. Is that a good ground for execution
pending appeal ?
A: In the old case of PRESBITERO vs. RODAS (73 Phil. 300) and JAVELLANA vs. QUERUBIN (July 30, 1966) the
SC said that, that is a good reason when the appeal is interposed for delay.
However, in the case of AQUINO vs. SANTIAGO (161 SCRA 570) the SC said that it is not a ground because it
is as if the trial court is already acting like the CA. It is only the CA which has the power to claim that the
appeal is without merit. Thats another reasoning.
But in the case of HOME INSURANCE CO. vs. CA (184 SCRA 318), the SC ruled that, that would be a good
reason again specially that there are many factors to show the inequity of not executing the judgment
immediately (if coupled with other reason). Thats why in the case of
HOME INSURANCE CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
184 SCRA 318
HELD: A good and sufficient reason upon which to issue execution of the judgment pending appeal is when
the appeal is being taken for the purpose of delay. While it is true that it is not for the trial court to say that
the appeal may not prosper or that it is frivolous [so, the SC is aware of these pronouncements], there are
circumstances which may serve as cogent bases for arriving at such a conclusion. Dean I: An example
where the trial court maybe justified in saying that the appeal is dilatory is in default judgements where
there is no evidence for the defendant. And then the defendant appeals. Now what is the chance of reversal
when all the evidence is for the plaintiff? The possibility that the judgment will be reversed is almost zero (0).
Therefore the court can rule that the appeal is dilatory and then order the execution of the judgment
pending appeal upon motion of the plaintiff.
The SC continues: Another vital factor which led trial court to allow execution pending appeal was the
pendency of the case for more than 17 years so that the purchasing power of the peso has undeniably
declined. Petitioner should be given relief before it is too late.

PB COM. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

279 SCRA 364 [Sept. 23, 1997]
HELD: It is significant to stress that private respondent Falcon is a juridical entity and not a natural person.
Even assuming that it was indeed in financial distress and on the verge of facing civil or even criminal suits,
the immediate execution of a judgment in its favor pending appeal cannot be justified as Falcon's situation
may not be likened to a case of a natural person who may be ill or may be of advanced age.
Even the danger of extinction of the corporation will not per se justify a discretionary execution unless there
are showings of other good reasons, such as for instance, impending insolvency of the adverse party or the
appeal being patently dilatory. Hence, it is not within competence of the trial court, in resolving a motion for
execution pending appeal, to rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and rely on the same as its basis for
finding good reason to grant the motion. Only an appellate court can appreciate the dilatory intent of an
appeal as an additional good reason in upholding an order for execution pending appeal which may have
been issued by the trial court for other good reasons, or in cases where the motion for execution pending

appeal is filed with the appellate court in accordance with Section 2, paragraph (a), Rule 39 of the 1997
Rules of Court.

4.)

When the successful party files a BOND;

Q: Here is a controversial question: How about an instance when the winning party offers to put up a bond.
He says; Alright, I am asking for an order pending appeal. I will put up a bond to answer for any damages
that the defendant may suffer in the event that he wins the appeal.
A: In the old case of HACIENDA NAVARRA vs. LABRADOR (65 Phil 635), the SC simply implied that there is a
good ground. HOWEVER, the SC denied that implication in later cases. Among which were the cases of
ROXAS vs. CA (157 SCRA 370) and PNB vs. PUNO, (170 SCRA 229) and PHOTOQUICK INC. vs. LAPENA, JR.
(195 SCRA 66).
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. PUNO
170 SCRA 229
HELD: The mere filing of a bond would not entitle the prevailing party to an execution pending appeal.
Whatever doubts may have been generated by early decisions involving this matter, starting with Hacienda
Navarra, Inc. vs. Labrador, et al., have been clarified in Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
To consider the mere posting of a bond a good reason would precisely make immediate execution of a
judgment pending appeal ROUTINARY, the rule rather than the exception. Judgments would be executed
immediately, as a matter of course, once rendered, if all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a
bond to answer for the damages that might result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat, neither
contemplated nor intended by law.
So, we might say that the posting of a bond would be an ADDITIONAL GOOD REASON but it is
NOT BY ITSELF a good reason. So, the case of HACIENDA NAVARRA VS. LABRADOR has been
misinterpreted.
The second paragraph of Section 2 [a]:
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed
in the appellate court.
Q: Where can you file your motion for execution pending appeal?
A: It DEPENDS:
1.)
TRIAL COURT - while it has jurisdiction over the case and the court is still in
possession of the records of the case. Meaning: (1.) the judgment has not yet become final - it is
still within the 15 day period, and (2.) the court still is in possession of the records of the case.
2.)
APPELLATE COURT after the trial court has already lost jurisdiction, the motion for
execution pending appeal may already be filed in the appellate court.
So, if the RTC has no more jurisdiction, then doon ka na mag-file ng motion sa CA.
Q: When will the court lose jurisdiction over the case ?
A: With regard to execution pending appeal, you can correlate this with RULE 41, SECTION 9 , to wit:
Rule 41, Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - A partys appeal by notice of appeal is
deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A partys appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to his with respect to the subject
matter thereof upon approval of the record of appeal filed in due time.

In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of
the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof
upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to
appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record of the record on appeal, the court
may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not
involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal. (9a)
The phrase order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39 was not there in the
Old Rules. Now, that has been added and it jives with Section 2 paragraph (a). Now, for as long as the
motion is filed, before the court loses jurisdiction and provided that the records are still with the trial court ,
even if the appeal is subsequently perfected, it can still act on the motion for execution pending appeal.
Now, let us go back to Section 2, Rule 39 on execution of several, separate or partial judgments meaning,
there are several judgments arising from the same case:
Rule 39, Section 2 [b]:
b)
Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several, separate or partial judgment
may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order
pending appeal. (2a)
Let us correlate this provision with Rule 36, Sections 4 and 5 AND Rule 37, section 8:
RULE 36, Sec. 4. Several judgments. - In an action against several defendants, the court may,
when a several judgment is proper, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the
action to proceed against the others. (4)
RULE 36, Sec. 5. Separate judgments. - When more than one claim for relief is presented in an
action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a particular claim
and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of
the claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall
terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to
the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by order may stay its
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe
such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor
the judgment is rendered. (5a)
RULE 37, Sec. 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. - When less than all of the issues are ordered
retried, the court may either enter a judgment or final order as to the rest, or stay the
enforcement of such judgment or final order until after the new trial. (7a)
Q: Can there be two or more judgments arising out of one case?
A: YES. (Rule 36, Sections 4 and 5)
Q: Can the first judgment be immediately executed while waiting for rendition of the second judgment?
A: Generally, the court will decide. If the court agrees, there has to be a good reason.
There is one interesting case on execution pending appeal the case of

RCPI vs. LANTIN

134 SCRA 395
FACTS: The case of Lantin was an action for damages. The court awarded the plaintiff said damages. So, the
plaintiff moved for discretionary execution.
ISSUE: Whether or not execution pending appeal is proper in a judgment for damages.
HELD: The execution pending appeal may be proper for enforcing the collection of ACTUAL
DAMAGES, but it is not proper to enforce the payment of moral or exemplary damages . So, this is
where the SC distinguished.
Why is it that execution pending appeal is proper for the collection of actual damages? In actual or
compensatory damages, the amount is certain. Normally, there are receipts. The amount is
based on evidence.
But the award for moral or exemplary damages is uncertain and indefinite. It is based on
abstract factors like sleepless nights, besmirched reputation. It is hard to quantify it based on
evidence.
The SC said, in many cases the trial court awards a huge amount for exemplary damages but on appeal, the
CA refused to award or totally eliminate the award. So, if the award of moral or exemplary damages is not
certain or fixed, the execution pending appeal may not be proper to enforce its execution.

Sec. 3. Stay of discretionary execution. - Discretionary execution issued under the preceding
section may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed
by the party against whom it is directed, 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. The bond
thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. (3a)
Q: Now, assuming that there is an execution pending appeal in favor of the plaintiff under Section 2 and I am
the defendant, is there a way for me to stop the execution pending appeal?
A: Your remedy is to apply Section 3. The defendant will now ask the court to fix a supersedeas bond to stop
the execution pending appeal. The bond will answer for any damages that the plaintiff may suffer if the
defendants appeal is not meritorious.
And once the supersedeas bond is filed, the court has to withdraw the execution pending appeal.
Supersedeas bond under Section 3 is 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.
GENERAL RULE: When a defendant puts up a supersedeas bond, the court shall recall the
execution pending appeal because discretionary execution is the exception rather than the
general rule.
EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding the filing of the supersedeas bond by the 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. (De
Leon vs. Soriano, 95 Phil. 806)
EXAMPLE OF EXCEPTION: Judgment for SUPPORT. The same may be executed pending appeal
even notwithstanding the filing of a supersedeas bond by the appellant. (De Leon vs. Soriano, 95
Phil. 806) Support is something which should not be delayed. What is the use of the supersedeas bond when
the need of the plaintiff is today and not 5 or 6 weeks from now? [aber?]
Alright, let us go to the next important classification of execution. The other classification as to the manner
of enforcement could be by MOTION or by INDEPENDENT ACTION.

EXECUTION BY MOTION
EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory judgment or order may
be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment
may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5)
years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of
limitations. (6a)
Q: How do you execute a judgment?
A: You file a motion for execution before the same court which rendered the judgment.
Q: How is the execution enforced?
A: There are two 2 modes under Section 6:
1.)
Execution by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry; and
2.)
Execution by independent action within five (5) to ten (10) years.
Execution BY MOTION means that the prevailing party shall ask the court to issue a writ of execution by
simply filing a motion in the same case.
EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff and I have a judgment here against the defendant. I do not know of any assets of
the defendant because the defendant for the meantime is as poor as a rat. But after a certain period of time
he becomes a wealthy man. All I have to do is to file a motion and the court will order the execution,
provided the motion is filed within 5 years from the date of the entry of judgment. The date of the entry of
judgment and the date of finality are the same (Rule 36, Section 2).
Q: Suppose the defendant becomes rich after 5 years, can I still file a motion to execute?
A: No more, because execution by motion must be filed within 5 years only from the date of its entry. If the
judgment was not executed within the 5-year period, the judgment has become dormant.
Q: What is a dormant judgment?
A: A DORMANT judgment is one that was not executed within 5 years.
Q: So, how can that (dormant) judgment be awaken?
A: The procedure is to file another civil action. A civil action for revival of judgment. That is what you
call EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION which must be filed before it is barred by the statute
of limitations. The second sentence states, after the lapse of such time (which is 5 years) and before it is
barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.
Q: When will it be barred by the statute of limitations ?
A: According to Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, the judgment may be enforced only within ten (10)
years.
Therefore, since the judgment will be enforced by motion for five (5) years, then after the fifth year, it will be
enforced by independent action. So, I will start the civil action for revival of judgment between or after the
5th year but before the 10th year. So, that is what we have to remember.
Q: Do you mean to tell me that I have to file the case all over again, practically repeating what happened 5
years ago?

A: NO, because the judgment in the independent action is a judgment reviving the first judgment.
For example, more than 5 years ago I sued you to collect on a promissory note and you alleged payment,
and you lost and the court said that you are liable to me. On the seventh year when I revived that judgment,
my rights are no longer based or derived on the promissory note but on such judgment. But you can still
invoke other defenses such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud. But you cannot question the correctness of the
original judgment because that is already res adjudicata. You are entitled to put up any defense that you
have against me provided that you cannot question the correctness of the original judgment. That is the
rule.
Q: Discuss briefly the nature of the action for enforcement of a dormant judgment.
A: The action for enforcement of a dormant judgment is an ordinary civil action the object of which is twofold, namely, (a) to revive the dormant judgment, and (b) to execute the judgment reviving it, if it grants the
plaintiff any relief. Hence, the rights of the judgment-creditor depend upon the second judgment. Being an
ordinary civil action, it is subject to all defenses, objections and counterclaims which the
judgment-debtor may have except that no inquiry can be made as to the merits of the first
judgment. Therefore, defenses that do not go to the merits of the first judgment, such as lack of
jurisdiction, collusion, fraud, or prescription, may be set sup by the judgment-debtor. (Cia. Gral. De Tabacos
vs. Martinez, 17 Phil. 160; Salvante vs. Ubi Cruz, 88 Phil. 236) [Taken from Remedial Law Reviewer by
Nuevas]
Q: Give the exception to the rule on dormant judgment.
A: The only exception is the judgment for support which does not become dormant, nor does it
prescribe. You can execute it anytime even beyond the 5-year period and any unpaid installment may be
executed by motion. (Florendo vs. Organo, 90 Phil. 483) So, even if the judgment is more than 5 years old,
the defendant defaulted on the seventh year, you just file a motion to collect that judgment.
Q: Suppose the judgment was executed and the property of the defendant was levied on the 4th year, and
the next stage is the auction sale.
A: The SC said the auction sale must also be WITHIN 10 years. So, even if the property was
levied, the auction sale must be within 10 years. Not only the levy of the property must be done
within 10 years but also the including the auction sale, otherwise, any auction sale done beyond
10 years in null and void.
Now, look at the last sentence in Section 6: The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within
five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of
limitations.
For example, I have here a judgment nine (9) years ago. I want to enforce it by action to revive judgment.
You mean to tell me that the revived judgment is good for another ten (10) years? Another 5 years for
motion to a right of action and then I can still revive it within 10 years?
Alright, in the original case of PNB vs. BONDOC (14 SCRA 770), the SC said that the period applies all over
again from the finality of the revived judgment. So, you have another ten (10) years. However, this principle
is abandoned in the later case of PNB vs. VELOSO (32 SCRA 266), the SC said that the original period is only
computed from the date of the original judgment.
And of course, because of those 2 conflicting cases, the court resolved those issues in the case of LUZON
SURETY CO. vs. IAC (151 SCRA 652) where the SC said, the later doctrine of VELOSO prevails. So, with that
ruling, the 10-year period applies only from the date of the original judgment, but you cannot say that once
it is revived, you have another 10 years.

But now, you look at the new law: The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5)
years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
Ano yan? That is a revival of the BONDOC ruling! Binalik yung original ruling which is, the revived judgment
is good for another 10 years.
So, I repeat, the last sentence has resurrected the ruling in the case of PNB vs. BONDOC and superseded
again LUZON vs. IAC. You are entitled to another 10 years from the date of the revived judgment.
ILLUSTRATION:
Example: First judgment became final in 1990. You can enforce that until 2000 by motion (1990-1995) or by
independent action (1995 2000). Suppose in 2000, you were able to secure a second judgment reviving
the first judgment, under the new rules, there is another ten years. The first judgment by motion. The next
5 years is by independent action. So, to illustrate:

1990

1995
5 years
By motion

5 years
by motion

10 years
Article 1144, Civil Code

2000

2005

5 years
by motion

2010

5 years
by motion

10 years
last sentence of Section 6

ARCENAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

299 SCRA 733 (December 4, 1998)
HELD: The purpose of the action for revival of a judgment is not to modify the original judgment subject of
the action but is merely to give a creditor a new right of enforcement from the date of revival.
The rule seeks to protect judgment creditors from wily and unscrupulous debtors who, in order to evade
attachment or execution, cunningly conceal their assets and wait until the statute of limitation sets in.
Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. - In case of the death of a party, execution may issue or
be enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee, upon the application of his executor or
administrator, or successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, against his executor or administrator or
successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or personal property, or
the enforcement of a lien thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is actually levied upon
any of his property, the same 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. (7a)
This is related to Rule 3, Section 20.
Q: What is the effect of a death of a party on the execution of a judgment?
A: The following:

1.) If it is the obligee (the creditor) will die

after he wins the case, his executor or
administrator, his legal representative or
his heirs and successors in interest can
enforce the judgment. They will be the one
to collect. (paragraph [a])
2.) If it is the defendant (obligor) who dies
and there is final judgment which is
recovery of real or personal property, the
judgment
is
executed
against
the
administrator or executor because this is an
action which survives. (paragraph [b]);
3.) Under par. (c), it is the death of the
obligor in a money claim. This is related to
Rule 3, Section 20. However, the timing of the
death is different. Let us connect these with Rule
3, Sec. 20:
Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. When the action is for recovery of money
arising from contract, express or implied,
and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment in the court in which the action
was pending at the time of such death, it
shall not be dismissed but shall instead be
allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained
by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in
the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the
estate of a deceased person. (21a)
So, for EXAMPLE: A filed a case against B to
collect an unpaid loan. What is the effect to the
case if B dies? It will depend on what stage of the
case he dies. If he died before final judgment
could be rendered by the court (before entry of
final judgment), there will be a substitution of
party and the case will continue until entry of
final judgment.
Suppose, there is already entry of final judgment
and he dies, it will depend whether there was
already a levy on execution. Meaning, there was
already entry of final judgment but before the
property is levied. This should not apply in Rule
39 because Section 7 [c] states that after
execution is levied.
But my question is no levy. The procedure there
is found in the Special Proceedings.
The
judgment shall be enforced in the manner
provided for by the Rules on claims against the
estate of the deceased under Rule 86. And that

is also mentioned in Rule 3, Section 20. It shall

be enforced in the manner provided for
against the estate.
Q: Suppose the defendant dies when there is
already a levy. What will happen?
A: The auction sale will proceed as scheduled in
connection with Section 7 [c] because the law says the
same may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment
obligation.
Meaning, the auction sale or the
execution sale shall proceed as scheduled. No
more substitution here.
So that question, What is the effect of the death
of a party on a pending civil case is a question
with so many angles anong klaseng kaso?; is it
one which is personal in nature or not?; if it is
not, is it one which survives or one which does
not?; if it does not survive, who died?; the
plaintiff or the defendant? if it is the defendant,
did he die before entry of final judgment?; did he
die after entry of final judgment but before there
could be levy or execution?; or did he die after
levy or execution? This last question is
answered by Section 7 [c].

Sec. 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, in the manner
hereinafter provided:
(a) If the execution be against the
property of the judgment obligor, to satisfy
the judgment, with interest, out of the real
or personal property of such judgment
obligor;
(b) If it be against real or personal property
in the hands of personal representatives,
heirs, devisees, legatees, tenants, or
trustees of the judgment obligor, to satisfy
the judgment, with interest, out of such
property;
(c) If it be for the sale of real or personal
property, to sell such property, describing
it, and apply the proceeds in conformity

with the judgment, the material parts of

which shall be recited in the writ of
execution.
(d) If it be for the delivery of the
possession of real or personal property, to
deliver the possession of the same,
describing it, to the party entitled thereto,
and to satisfy any costs, damages, rents, or
profits covered by the judgment out of the
personal property of the person against
whom it was rendered, and if sufficient
personal property cannot be found, then
out of the real property; and
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall
specifically state the amount of the
interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits
due as of the date of the issuance of the
writ, aside from the principal obligation
under the judgment. For this purpose, the
motion for execution shall specify the
amounts of the foregoing reliefs sought by
the movant. (8a)
WRIT OF EXECUTION is actually the document
which is issued by the court addressed to the
sheriff. The writ is actually the instruction to the
sheriff on what he should do. It would depend on
what kind of decision is it an action for sum of
money or is it for recovery of real property?
Mimeographed iyan, addressed to the sheriff.
These are standard forms in court.
Now, with respect to Section 8, the changes can
be found in paragraph [e] which mandates now
that the writ of execution must state the exact
amount to be collected. That is why according to
the last sentence of paragraph [e], for this
purpose, the motion for execution shall specify
the amounts of the foregoing reliefs sought by
the movant.
Normally, when lawyers file a motion to
execute they will just quote the principal,
but they do not state the costs or interests.
Now, under the new rule, when you file the
motion for execution, you must also state
how much is the costs or interests.
EXECUTION OF MONEY JUDGMENT
How do you execute judgment for money?
Contractual debts or damages. Example, the
defendant is ordered to pay defendant P1 million

with interest, how does the sheriff enforce that?

Section 9 provides a detailed explanation on how
judgment for money is enforced. Let us go over
the first paragraph:
Sec. 9.
Execution of judgments for money,
how enforced. (a) Immediate payment on demand. - The
officer shall enforce an execution of a
judgment for money by demanding from the
judgment obligor the immediate payment
of the full amount stated in the writ of
execution and all lawful fees. The judgment
obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank
check payable to the judgment obligee, or
any other form of payment acceptable to
the latter, the amount of the judgment debt
under proper receipt directly to the
judgment
obligee
or
his
authorized
representative if present at the time of
payment. The lawful fees shall be handed
under proper receipt to the executing
sheriff who shall turn over the said amount
within the same day to the clerk of court of
the court that issued the writ.

STEPS: (under paragraph [a])

1.) The sheriff must demand payment from the
obligor;
2.) The obligor can pay in cash, certified bank
check payable to the judgment obligee (creditor)
or any other form of payment acceptable to the
latter. Kung sabihin ng obligor: Yung kotse ko
na lang. That will be alright so long as it is also
alright with the obligee;
3.) The payment shall go to the obligee;
4.) The lawful fees shall be paid to the
executing sheriff who shall turn over the said
amount within the same day to the clerk of court
of the court that issued the writ.
This assumes that the obligee is present with
sheriff. Suppose the creditor is not around? Let
us go to the second paragraph:
Section 9 [a], 2nd par. If the judgment
obligee or his authorized representative is
not present to receive payment, the
judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid
payment to the executing sheriff.
The

latter shall turn over all the amounts

coming into his possession within the same
day to the clerk of court of the court that
issued the writ, or if the same is not
practicable, deposit said amounts to a
fiduciary
account
in
the
nearest
government
depository
bank
of
the
Regional Trial Court of the locality.
If the plaintiff is not there, the payment is made
to the sheriff and he is supposed to endorse it to
the clerk of court. The clerk of court will look for
the obligee to remit the money.
In the second sentence, this usually happens if
the execution is to be done outside of the locality.
For example, the decision in Davao will be
enforced in Cotabato. So, the sheriff in Cotabato
will be the one to enforce and he will give the
payment to the clerk of court there who in turn
will transmit the money to the clerk of court in
Davao.
This is because the decision to be
executed is one in Davao.
Let us go to the third paragraph:
The clerk of said court shall thereafter
arrange for the remittance of the deposit to
the account of the court that issued the
writ whose clerk of court shall then deliver
said payment to the judgment obligee in
satisfaction of the judgment. The excess, if
any, shall be delivered to the judgment
obligor while the lawful fees shall be
retained by the clerk of court for
disposition as provided by law. In no case
shall the executing sheriff demand that any
payment by check be made payable to him.
This assumes that the property of the defendant
which was levied in Cotabato but judgment is one
which originated in Davao clerk to clerk.
The last sentence says In no case shall the
executing sheriff demand that any payment by
check be made payable to him. It shall be
payable to the obligee. I think what the SC would
like to avoid here is that which happened in the
case of PAL a labor case where PAL paid check
payable to the sheriff. The sheriff ran away with
the check. PAL was made to pay all over again.

(b) Satisfaction by levy. - If the judgment

obligor cannot pay all or part of the
obligation in cash, certified bank check or
other mode of payment acceptable to the
judgment obligee, the officer shall levy
upon the properties of the judgment obligor
of every kind and nature whatsoever which
may be disposed of for value and not
otherwise exempt from execution giving the
latter the option to immediately choose
which property or part thereof may be
levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the
judgment. If the judgment obligor 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 sufficient to answer for the
judgment.

So, under paragraph [a], the first step is when

the judgment debtor has enough money, bayaran
niya in cash or check.
Q: Suppose walang pera, or the cash is not
sufficient. What will the sheriff do?
A: He shall levy upon the properties of the
judgment obligor not otherwise exempt from
execution. In the vernacular term, sasabihing nasheriff ka.
Q: Define levy.
A: Levy is the act whereby a sheriff sets apart or
appropriates, for the purpose of satisfying the
command of the writ, a part or the whole of the
judgment-debtors property. (Valenzuela vs. De
Aguilar, L-18083-84, May 31, 1963) Normally, this
is done on personal property. Kung lupa naman,
they will annotate on the title. Parang mortgage
ba.
Q: What is the importance of levy with respect to
execution of a money judgment?
A: 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 vs. De Aguilar, L-18083-84, May 31,
1963)
Q: What kind of property can be levied?

A: Any real, personal, tangible, intangible

except those properties exempt from execution.
Q: Does the debtor has the right to tell the sheriff
what property he should levy?
A: YES. The law gives the debtor or defendant the
option to immediately choose which property or
part thereof may be levied upon sufficient to
satisfy the judgment. Example: I am the debtor
and I have many properties. And the sheriff
would like to levy on my house and lot, or yung
Toyota Altis ko. Under the law, I have the right to
choose among them.
The phrase giving the latter the option to
immediately choose which property or part
thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy
the judgment. This did not appear under the old
law. This is taken from the case of PHILIPPINE
MILLS vs. DAYRIT (192 SCRA 177), where the SC
said the debtor is given the option of which
property shall be levied.
And the sequence of levying is to levy the
personal properties first. Then real properties if
personal properties are not sufficient.
Under the second paragraph of [b], when the
sheriff levies on the property of the judgment
debtor and the judgment debtor has more than
sufficient property to cover the judgment debt,
the sheriff cannot levy all the properties. Or else,
he will be made liable. For example, the debt is
only P 30,000, tapos ang i-levy mo kotse (Toyota
Altis) at bahay, which worth millions? My golly!
Thats too much! You sell only up to the point that
the judgment will be satisfied.
Q: But if it is real property or intangible personal
property like shares of stock, debts, credits
(collectibles), can you levy on these?
A: YES. And under the last paragraph of [b] They
may be levied upon in like manner and with like
effect as under a writ of attachment under Rule
57 on attachment.
GARNISHMENT HOW TO LEVY
Paragraph [c] of Section 9 is on how to levy
intangibles. When you want to levy or you
want to execute on intangible property, the
legal term there is garnishment.

(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. - The

officer may levy on debts due the judgment
obligor and other credits, including bank
deposits, financial interests, royalties,
commissions and other personal property
not capable of manual delivery in the
possession or control of third parties. Levy
shall be made by serving notice upon the
person owing such debts or having in his
possession or control such credits to which
the judgment obligor is entitled. The
garnishment shall cover only such amount
as will satisfy the judgment and all lawful
fees.
The garnishee shall make a written report
to the court within five (5) days from
service of the notice of garnishment stating
whether or not the judgment obligor has
sufficient funds or credits to satisfy the
amount of the judgment. If not, the report
shall state how much funds or credits the
garnishee holds for the judgment obligor.
The garnished amount in cash, or certified
bank check issued in the name of the
judgment obligee, shall be delivered
directly to the judgment obligee within ten
(10) working days from service of notice on
said garnishee requiring such delivery,
except the lawful fees which shall be paid
directly to the court.
In the event there are two or more
garnishees holding deposits or credits
sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the
judgment obligor, if available, shall have
the right to indicate the garnishee or
garnishees who shall be required to deliver
the amount due; otherwise, the choice shall
be made by the judgment obligee.
The executing sheriff shall observe the
same procedure under paragraph (a) with
respect to delivery of payment to the
judgment obligee. (8a, 15a)
Q: So, what are these properties which may be
the subject of garnishment?
A: Credits which include bank deposits, financial
interests, royalties, commissions and other
personal property not capable of manual delivery
intangibles bah! You send a notice upon the
person owing such debts or having in his
possession or control such credits. And it shall
cover only such amount as will satisfy the
judgment.

Example of garnishment: bank account. I will file

a case against you, talo ka. I learned that you
have a deposit with Sanikoh Bank. Puwede kong
habulin yan ba, because
that is credit.
In
obligations and contracts, the relationship of the
depositor and the bank is that of a creditor and
debtor. It is not a contract of deposit because
actually, the bank is borrowing money from you.
Kaya nga, it pays you interest eh.
So, under garnishment, the bank is being
commanded not to pay you but instead pay the
sheriff. Yaan!! Yan ang concept ng garnishment.
Garnishee refers to the debtor, like the bank.
When the bank deposit is garnished, the second
paragraph tell us what the bank will do. And if
there are 2 or more banks na ma-garnish, under
the next paragraph, the debtor obligor will
determine. If he does not exercise his option,
then the judgment creditor will determine.
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OTHER THAN
MONEY
Section 10 is the procedure for executing a
judgment
other
than
to collect
money.
Sometimes, money is only incidental. There are
court decisions could be something else like
specific performance, or accion publiciana. You
are more interested in recovering your property.
Another is Unlawful Detainer where unpaid
rentals may be paid but the plaintiff is more
interested in the ejectment the unpaid rentals
can be collected in the same manner as Section
9.

Sec. 10. Execution of judgments of specific act.

(a)
Conveyance, delivery of deeds,
or other specific acts; vesting title. - If a
judgment directs a party to execute a
conveyance of land or personal property, or
to deliver deeds or other documents, or to
perform any other specific act in connection
therewith, and the party fails to comply
within the time specified, the court may
direct the act to be done at the cost of the
disobedient party by some other person
appointed by the court and the act when so
done shall have like effect as if done by the
party. If real or personal property is

situated within the Philippines, the court in

lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may
by an order divest the title of any party and
vest it in others, which shall have the force
and effect of a conveyance executed in due
form of law. (10a)
xxxxx
EXAMPLES of the first sentence:
1.)
An action for reconveyance of
property where you are asking the defendant, a
title owner, to convey to you his property. The
property will be held in trust or that the title be in
your name instead of his;
2.)
Pacto de retro. I sold to you my land
and I am repurchasing it, pero ayaw mo. You
refuse to execute a deed of sale returning the
property to me;
3.)
Public Land Law. I am the owner of
a property under homestead or free patent and
sold it after the prohibition period. Under the
public land law, I have the right to repurchase it
within 5 years. Ayaw mong ibalik, so idemanda
kita. Of course, if I win, you will be directed to
return to me the property and execute a deed of
sale.
4.)
An action for specific performance
to compel you to return to me said property. And
the court will order: Alright, execute a deed of
sale. You refuse. The court may order the clerk
of court to sign the deed of sale or the Register of
Deeds will be ordered to register the same as if
done by the obligor. The obligors signature is not
needed.
(b) Sale of real or personal property. - If the
judgment be for the sale of real or personal
property, to sell such property, describing
it, and apply the proceeds in conformity
with the judgment. (8 [c] a)
The best example for [b] is an action for
termination of co-ownership where there are 50
co-owners of one (1) hectare the property will
be ordered sold and the proceeds will be
distributed among the co-owners.
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. The officer shall demand of the person
against whom the judgment for the delivery
or restitution of real property is rendered
and all persons claiming rights under him to
peaceably vacate the property within three

(3) working days, and restore possession

thereof to the judgment obligee; otherwise,
the officer shall oust all such persons
therefrom with the assistance, if necessary,
or
appropriate
peace
officers,
and
employing
such
means
as
may
be
reasonably necessary to retake possession,
and
place
the judgment obligee
in
possession of such property.
Any costs,
damages, rents or profits awarded by the
judgment shall be satisfied in the same
manner as a judgment for money. (13a)
Now, with respect to Section 10, particularly
paragraph [c] delivery or restitution of real
property. this is applicable to actions for forcible
entry, unlawful detainer, accion publiciana.
Q: So, what is the procedure?
A: The sheriff will give the defendant the chance
to vacate the property, I am giving you the
chance to vacate within three (3) working days
and restore possession thereof. And then ayaw
mo pa rin, I will use force to oust you with the
assistance of the appropriate peace officers and
place the judgment obligee in possession of such
property.
And if there are damages or unpaid rentals, I will
also levy the property under Section 9. Because
sometimes, aside from ousting the defendant,
meron pang money judgment like unpaid rentals.
So, the property of the defendant may be levied.
That is the procedure.
In the 1995 case of
SAN MANUEL vs. TUPAS
249 SCRA 466
HELD: The immediate enforcement of a writ of
ejectment execution is carried out by giving the
defendant a notice of such writ and making a
demand that defendant comply therewith within
a reasonable period, normally from three (3) to
five (5) days, and it is only after such period that
the sheriff enforces the writ by the bodily
removal of the defendant and his personal
belongings.
(d) Removal of improvements on property
subject of execution. - When the property
subject
of
the
execution
contains

improvements constructed or planted by

the judgment obligor or his agent, the
officer shall not destroy, demolish or
remove said improvements except upon
special order of the court, issued upon
motion of the judgment obligee after due
hearing and after the former has failed to
remove the same within a reasonable time
fixed by the court. (14a)
Q: When you oust the defendant in regard of a
possession case, is a writ of execution a sufficient
basis for the removal of improvements of the
property?
A: NO. Under paragraph [d], the plaintiff or
judgment obligee still have to get a special order
from the court by filing a petition to authorize the
destruction or removal of the improvements of
the property after the defendant is given a
reasonable time to remove his shanty or house
voluntarily.
In other words, there must be a special order.
The writ of execution only authorizes you to
oust the defendant physically, but not to
destroy any property. Just like in squatters,
you need a special order for demolition.
(e) Delivery of personal property. - In
judgments for the delivery of personal
property, the officer shall take possession
of the same and forthwith deliver it to the
party entitled thereto and satisfy any
judgment for money as therein provided.
(8a)
Paragraph [e] is related to REPLEVIN action to
recover personal property where the plaintiff is
trying to repossess a personal property from the
defendant. For example, bili ka ng appliance
tapos hindi mo nabayaran, babawiin yan ng
appliance center. Or, the finance company or the
car dealer will resort to replevin to recover the
unit by filing an action for replevin against the
buyer.
Take note that the procedure for enforcing a
money judgment is different from enforcing a
judgment for ejectment, or recovery of
possession. Enforcement of money judgment is in
Section 9 you get the money. Kung walang
money, you levy on the property of the

defendant. If it is ejectment or recovery of

possession of property, you follow Section 10,
paragraph [c].
Now, here is an interesting case involving these
two sections (Sections 9 & 10) the 1995 case of
ABINUJAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS
243 SCRA 531
FACTS: The case of Abinujar started when the
plaintiff filed a case for unlawful detainer against
the Abinujar spouses for the latter to vacate their
house in Manila. When the case was going on,
the parties executed a compromise agreement
which became the basis of the judgment by the
court, so a compromise judgment.
The agreement stated that the Abinujar spouses
shall pay the plaintiffs the amount specifically
agreed upon: P50,000 on January 31; P10,000 on
Febrauary 28; P10,000 on March 31, etc. until
September 30. It further states that failure on the
part of the Abinujar spouses to pay three (3)
consecutive payments, the plaintiffs shall be
entitled to a writ of execution.
After three (3) months, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for execution on the ground that the
Abinujars failed to pay the three installments.
The trial court granted the motion and the notice
to the defendant to voluntarily vacate the
premises was served on the Abinujars.
The Abinujars attacked the validity of the sheriffs
notice to vacate by way of enforcing the
compromise judgment. They maintained that
their obligation is monetary and therefore you
should apply Section 9 you collect but do not
eject us. The plaintiffs argued that what is
applicable is Section 10 on ejectment because
this is an unlawful detainer case.
ISSUE: Which section shall be applied Section
9? or Section 10?
HELD: The contention of the Abinujars is
meritorious meaning, you cannot eject the
Abinujars.
When
the
parties
entered
into
a
compromise agreement, the original action
for ejectment was set aside and the action
was changed to a monetary obligation.
A perusal of the compromise agreement signed
by the parties and approved by the inferior court
merely provided that in case the Abinujars failed

to pay three monthly installments, the plaintiffs

would be entitled to a writ of execution, without
specifying what the subject of execution would
be. Said agreement did not state that Abinujars
would be evicted from the premises subject of
the suit in case of any default in complying with
their obligation thereunder. This was the result of
the careless drafting thereof for which only
plaintiffs were to be blamed.
As Abinujars obligation under the compromise
agreement as approved by the court was
monetary in nature, plaintiffs can avail only of the
writ of execution provided in Section 9, and not
that provided in Section 10.

ORDINARY AND SPECIAL JUDGMENT

Sec. 11.
Execution of special judgments. When a judgment requires the performance
of any act other than those mentioned in
the two preceding sections, a certified copy
of the judgment shall be attached to the
writ of execution and shall be served by the
officer upon the party against whom the
same is rendered, or upon any other person
required thereby, or by law, to obey the
same, and such party or person may be
punished for contempt if he disobeys such
judgment. (9a)
There are two (2) types of judgment under the
law: (1) SPECIAL and (2) ORDINARY.
ORDINARY JUDGMENT - if the judgment orders
the defendant to pay money, like a collection
case (Section 9) or to deliver real or personal
property (Section 10).
SPECIAL JUDGMENT is a judgment which
requires the defendant to perform an act other
than payment of money or delivery of property. It
refers to a specific act which a party or person
must personally do because his personal
qualifications and circumstances have been
taken into consideration.
EXAMPLE of a special judgment: Usurpation of
government office. You are the city treasurer and
somebody else is appointed city treasurer and
you refuse to vacate. So there will be a quo
warranto proceeding. Then the judgment will
order you to vacate your position, such judgment

is a special judgment because you are not

ordered to pay anything nor deliver property.
Q: What is the difference between the Ordinary
and Special judgments?
A: A special judgment may be enforced by
contempt if the defendant refuses to
comply with the judgment. But if it is an
ordinary judgment and the defendant
refuses to comply, it is not a ground for
contempt.
Under Section 9, if the judgment-debtor refuses
to pay his debt, you cannot cite him in contempt
because under the Constitution, no person shall
be imprisoned for debt. The correct procedure
under Section 9 is you look for properties of the
defendant and then ipa-levy mo. You do not send
the debtor to jail.
Under Section 10 if the squatter refuses to
vacate, you cannot cite him in contempt and
send him to jail. Kung ayaw, you get police for
back up. That is the procedure.

Sec. 12.
Effect of levy on execution as to
third persons. - The levy on execution shall
create a lien in favor of the judgment
obligee over the right, title and interest of
the judgment obligor in such property at
the time of the levy, subject to liens and
encumbrances then existing. (16a)
This is related to Property Registration Decree.
EXAMPLE: I own a piece of land which I
mortgaged with the bank. The bank annotated
the mortgage on my title. My land is now subject
to a lien or an encumbrance. I also owe money to
A. He sued me. He won and my land is levied.
Q: What happens to the mortgage lien of the
bank? Will it be affected by the levy of A?
A: NO. Even if the property is sold at public
auction and we will assume that it will go to A,
that property is still under mortgage. A has to
respect the lien nauna yung sa bank eh!
Wherever the property goes, it is subject to the
mortgage lien of the bank because the banks
lien is superior.

But under Section 11, if defendant is ordered to

vacate his office because he is no longer the city
treasurer, the plaintiff can have him arrested and
brought to jail because that
is a special
judgment which can be enforced by contempt.

Therefore, an execution is always subject to the

liens and encumbrances of the property then
existing.

Q: Give an specific rule on special judgment.

A: Section 9 of Rule 65 Special Civil Action for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, to wit:

We already discussed the rule that to satisfy a

money judgment, the sheriff can levy on the
properties of the judgment obligor. All properties
are subject, except those exempt from execution.
What are the properties of a defendant-debtor
which cannot be subject to a levy or execution?

Rule 65, Sec 9. Service and enforcement of

order or judgment.- A certified copy of the
judgment rendered in accordance with the
last preceding section shall be served upon
the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person
concerned in such manner as the court may
direct, and disobedience thereto shall be
punished as contempt. An execution may
issue for any damages or costs awarded in
accordance with section 1 of Rule 39. (9a)
Therefore, a judgement in a certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus case, if not
complied with, is punishable by contempt.

PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION

Sec. 13. Property exempt from execution. Except as otherwise expressly provided by
law, the following property, and no other,
shall be exempt from execution:
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as
provided by law, or the homestead in which
he resides, and land necessarily used in
connection therewith;
You have a house where your family resides. You
call it FAMILY HOME it is the house where the
members of the family reside, including the lot.

Q: For instance, you lost in a case where you are

liable for P200T. You have no other property left
except that house where you live. Can the sheriff
levy the house to answer such obligations?
A: NO. The judgment obligors family home and
the land necessarily used in connection therewith
is exempt. That is a guarantee that no matter
how many obligations you have, there is no way
for you to be thrown to the street to be a
homeless person. Your house cannot be levied;
but in the Family Code, theres a limit, if your
house is a mansion worth millions, that is not
exempt. Please review your Family Code on this
matter.
(b) Ordinary tools and implements
personally used by him in his trade,
employment, or livelihood;
This is self-explanatory. If you are a carpenter,
you earn your living by being a carpenter. What
are the ordinary tools that you must have? Saw,
hammer, etc. By public policy and by legal
provision, the tools and implements used by a
carpenter in his trade, employment, or livelihood
cannot be levied by the sheriff.
Under the prior law, there was no word
ordinary and personally. The old law says,
tools and implements used by him. In the new
rules, the words ordinary and personally are
added. What is the reason behind this? This
provision is in accordance with what the SC ruled
in the 1990 case of
PENTAGON SECURITY vs. JIMENEZ
192 SCRA 492
FACTS: The Pentagon Security and Investigation
Agency (PSIA) is a security agency owned by
somebody who is engaged in security services.
Because of a money judgment against the
agency in a labor case, the sheriff levied all the
firearms of the agency. PSIA claimed that the
firearms are exempt from execution under
paragraph [b] since they are tools and
implements used by the agency in its trade,
employment or livelihood because how can a
security agency operate without firearms.
ISSUE: Is the argument of PSIA correct?
HELD: NO. The firearms owned by PSIA are not
covered by the exemption.

The term tools and implements refers to

instruments of husbandry or manual labor
needed by an artisan craftsman or laborer to
obtain his living. Here, PSIA is a business
enterprise. It does not use the firearms
personally, but they are used by its employees.
Not being a natural person, petitioner
cannot claim that the firearms are
necessary for its livelihood.
It would appear that the exemption
contemplated by the provision involved is
personal, available only to a natural person,
such as a dentists dental chair and electric
fan. If properties used in business are
exempt from execution, there can hardly be
an instance when a judgment claim can be
enforced against the business entity.
Meaning, if the exemption is extended to a
juridical person like a corporation, then
practically all the properties needed by the
business could be considered as tools and
implements. For EXAMPLE, you will sue a carrier
like Bachelor Bus and you won. Then you will levy
on the bus. Bachelor will claims exemption
because that is a tool or implement.
Or, you file a case against PAL. They lost. You
levy on the airbus. PAL alleged exemption
because it is a tool or implement. My golly! Lahat
ng properties, tools or implements!? Di pwede
yan! That is not what the law contemplates.
Now, what is interesting in the PENTAGON case is
that the SC says that firearms can be levied, they
can be sold at public auction. SC: However, for
security reasons, and to prevent the possibility
that the firearms to be sold at the execution sale
may fall into the hands of lawless and subversive
elements, the sale at public auction should be
with the prior clearance and under supervision of
the PNP. Otherwise, the persons who might bid
are kidnappers, NPA, Abu Sayyaff, (Kuratong
Baleleng, MILF, MNLF, Lost Command, Kulto
Pinish, Polgas, PAOCTF, Osama bin Laden et al,
etc.) So, there must be a prior clearance on the
sale of the firearms during the auction sale.
(c) Three horses, or three cows, or three
carabaos, or other beasts of burden, such
as the judgment obligor may select
necessarily used by him in his ordinary
occupation;

For example, you are a farmer. You plow your

land by a carabao. You cannot levy the carabao.
OR, if you are a cochero, you have a horse for
your caretela. You cannot levy the horse. [ang
horse shit, pwede! Pero yung horse mismo, di
pwede!] And under the prior rules, only 2 horses,
2 cows or carabaos are exempt. The new rules
make it three (3).

(d) His necessary clothing and articles for

ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry;
You cannot levy on the debtors wardrobe. These
are articles for ordinary personal use. This article
excludes jewelry. Alahas, pwede i-levy. All other
things for basic needs are exempt, like personal
comb, toothbrush, etc.

(e) Household furniture and utensils

necessary for housekeeping, and used for
that purpose by the judgment obligor and
his family, such as the judgment obligor
may select, of a value not exceeding one
hundred thousand pesos;
Household furniture like dining table, dining chair,
sala set, utensils necessary for housekeeping and
used for the purpose by the obligor and his family
like plates, forks, spoons. How can you eat
without those utensils. BUT theres a limit that
the value does not exceed P100,000. If the value
exceeds, it can be levied.
There was a sheriff who asked me (Dean I).
According to him, he was enforcing a money
judgment. The sheriff went to the house of the
debtor. He took the stereo, TV set, refrigerator.
Defendant said, Hindi pwede dahil hindi pa
umabot ng P100,000. Sabi ko, you look at the
law: You cannot levy those furnitures if not
exceeding P100,000. In my (Deans) view,
covered yan. But utensils not necessarily for
living are not covered by the exemption. They are
luxury, not necessary. These TV, sala set,
refrigerator can be levied because they are not
necessary for living as contrasted to kutsara,
plato, etc. (Dean however refused to answer the
sheriff whether the properties in question can be
levied. Tanungin mo ang abogado mo!)

(f)
Provisions for individual or family use
sufficient for four months;
For example, one sack of rice for daily
consumption, canned goods provisions for
consumption good for 4 months are exempt. If
you have one bodega of rice, ibang storya yan.
(g) The
professional
libraries
and
equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians,
pharmacists,
dentists,
engineers,
surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other
professional, not exceeding three hundred
thousand (P300,000.00) pesos in value;
Your books, books of judges and professionals
and equipment maybe the computer,
typewriter,
dentists
chair,
equipment
of
engineers are exempt provided the value does
not exceed P300,000.
(h) One fishing boat and accessories not
exceeding the total value of one hundred
thousand (P100,000.00) pesos owned by a
fisherman and by the lawful use of which he
earns his livelihood;
Example: Fishing boat of a fisherman, the
accessories net, provided these do not exceed
P100,000.
(i)
So much of the salaries, wages, or
earnings of the judgment obligor for his
personal services within the four months
preceding the levy as are necessary for the
support of his family;
The salary of a person within 4 months is exempt.
For example, you have backwages of 6 months.
Only 2 months salary can be levied. Exempt ang
4 months.
Technically, wages and salaries are exempt as
long as they are necessary for support of living. If
you earn a minimum wage, everything may be
exempted. But if you earn P50,000 a month and
you support only two people, the court may levy
on the excess.
(j)

Lettered gravestones;

Lapida sa sementeryo, hindi pwede i-levy.

Why will you levy on lettered gravestones? My
golly!
(k) Monies,
benefits,
privileges,
or
annuities accruing or in any manner
growing out of any life insurance;
The proceeds of life insurance. The amount
received by the beneficiaries cannot be levied,
not a single centavo.
(l)
The right to receive legal support, or
money or property obtained as such
support, or any pension or gratuity from
the Government;
The right to receive legal support. The right ba!
For instance, ako na lang ang mag receive ng
support mo. Hindi pwede yan. Also the money
given monthly to you if you are receiving support
cannot be levied. Any pension or gratuity from
the government GSIS pension, for example.

(m) Properties specially exempted by law.

This is very broad any other property exempt by
special law.
Q: Give an example where a property is exempt
from execution under the special law?
A: The following:
1.)
Property obtained pursuant to a free
patent application, HOMESTEAD. That is not
subject to any claim within 5 years. You cannot
even sell that within 5 years, how much more
kung embargohin sa iyo? That is under CA 141
Public Land Law;
2.)
Under
Social
Legislation,
SSS
benefits are also exempt from execution, just like
GSIS benefits;
3.)
Under CARP law, the property
acquired by a tenant under that law cannot be
levied also.

The last paragraph of Section 13 says that if for

example, you ordered books and you failed to
pay, you cannot claim the exemption because
the obligation arose from the same item. For
example:
BAR PROBLEM: A lawyer went to Alemars
professional books supply. He bought books
worth half a million. That was utang P500,000.
The store decided to sue the lawyer for such
amount not paid. The bookstore got a judgment.
There was a levy on the lawyers property. The
sheriff levied on the same books which became
the source of the case. The lawyer claimed
exemption under Section 13 up to P300,000
because it forms part of his professional library. Is
the lawyer correct??
A: the lawyer is WRONG because of the last
paragraph of Section 13 that no article or species
of properties mentioned in this section shall be
exempt from execution issued upon a judgment
recovered for the price or upon a judgment of
foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
What the law says, is the properties
mentioned here (in Section 13) are exempt,
EXCEPT when that debt arose out of that
property. For example, here, why are you
indebted to Alemars? Because of unpaid books.
So the very books which gave rise to an
obligation are not exempt from execution.
But if another creditor will file a case against the
lawyer, and that other creditor will win, that
creditor cannot levy on the books because they
are exempt. But the creditor from whom the
books were bought can levy on the same books
which gave rise to an obligation.

Section 13, last paragraph:

The same thing with FAMILY HOME. For example,

you will build a family home and then, hindi mo
binayaran ang materials, labor and there was
judgment against you. The creditor and the
owner can levy on the house. He cannot claim
exemption because the debt arose out of that
same family home.

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. (12a)

Another example: You borrowed money from the

bank. You mortgaged your house. Later on, you
cannot pay the loan. The bank foreclosed the
mortgage. You cannot argue that your house
cannot be levied. Kaya nga may utang ka

because of your house. Since you mortgaged it,

that is not covered by the exemption.
Q: What is the REASON behind this exemption?
A: The reason for this exemption is PUBLIC
POLICY. And common sense no? the debtor
should pay but this should not deprive him of a
means to earn his living. You can levy on his
property but not to the extent of depriving him of
his provisions for support, means of livelihood by
throwing him on to the street, homeless,
penniless, despondent, dejected, mournful,
melancholy, forlorn
LIFETIME OF WRIT OF EXECUTION FIVE (5)
YEARS
Sec. 14.
Return of writ of execution. - The
writ of execution shall be returnable to the
court issuing it immediately after the
judgment has been satisfied in part or in
full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in
full within thirty (30) days after his receipt
of the writ, the officer shall report to the
court and state the reason therefor. Such
writ shall continue in effect during the
period within which the judgment may be
enforced by motion(5 years). The officer
shall make a report to the court every thirty
(30) days on the proceedings taken thereon
until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its
effectivity expires. The returns or periodic
reports shall set forth the whole of the
proceedings taken, and shall be filed with
the court and copies thereof promptly
furnished the parties. (11a)
Under the OLD RULE, the lifetime of a writ of
execution is only 60 days. After that, expired na
yung writ. The sheriff has to use the writ to levy
on the property of the defendant within 60 days.
If the defendant has no property at present, and
the writ has already expired, and assuming that
there will be some properties found in the future,
the procedure under the old rules is, the plaintiff
has to file a motion for an ALIAS WRIT of
execution, because once it is issued, it is again
good for another 60 days.
Under the PRESENT RULE, the 60-day period is
already obsolete. The effectivity now of a writ of
execution is, for as long as the judgment may be
enforced by motion. And under Section 6, a

judgment may be enforced by motion within five

(5) years. So in effect, the writ of execution is
valid for FIVE (5) years. The lifetime now has
been extended from 60 days to 5 years.
Of course, as much as possible, the writ must be
enforced within 30 days and after that, the sheriff
will tell the court about what happened after 30
days.
So, the sheriff says based on the RETURN, Wala
pang property ang defendant. Now, he just
keeps on holding the writ. And maybe after one
or two years, meron nang property ang
defendant, he
can now enforce the writ. But
definitely, there is no need for the defendant to
go back to the court to ask for another alias writ
of execution because the writ can still be
enforced for as long as the judgment may be
enforced by motion.
Although every 30 days, the sheriff has to make a
periodic report with the court. I do not know if
the sheriffs here follow this procedure.
But
definitely, a writ is good for 5 years and in every
30 days, the sheriff has to make a report.

NOTICE OF SALE
Sec. 15.
Notice of sale of property on
execution. - Before the sale of property on
execution, notice thereof must be given as
follows:
(a) In case of perishable property, by
posting written notice of the time and place
of the sale in three (3) public places,
preferably in conspicuous areas of the
municipal or city hall, post office and public
market in the municipality or city where the
sale is to take place, for such time as may
be reasonable, considering the character
and condition of the property;
(b) In case of other personal property, by
posting a similar notice in the three (3)
public places above-mentioned for not less
that five (5) days;
(c) In case of real property, by posting for
twenty (20) days in the three (3) public
places above-mentioned a similar notice
particularly describing the property and

stating where the property is to be sold,

and if the assessed value of the property
exceeds fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos,
by publishing a copy of the notice once a
week for two (2) consecutive weeks in one
newspaper selected by raffle, whether in
English, Filipino, or any major regional
language published, edited and circulated
or, in the absence thereof, having general
circulation in the province or city;
(d) In all case, written notice of the sale
shall be given to the judgment obligor, at
least three (3) days before the sale, except
as provided in paragraph (a) hereof where
notice shall be given at any time before the
sale, in the same manner as personal
service of pleadings and other papers as
provided by section 6 of Rule 13.
The notice shall specify the place, date and
exact time of the sale which should not be
earlier than nine o'clock in the morning and
not later than two o'clock in the afternoon.
The place of the sale may be agreed upon
by the parties. In the absence of such
agreement, the sale of real property or
personal property not capable of manual
delivery shall be held in the office of the
clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court or
the Municipal Trial Court which issued the
writ or which was designated by the
appellate court. In the case of personal
property capable of manual delivery, the
sale shall be held in the place where the
property is located. (18a)
Auction sale follows levy. There must be notices
because auction sale is open to the public.
Notices must be posted in 3 public places
preferably in the municipal hall, post office and
public market. In paragraph [c], if the property to
be sold is REAL property, the notices must
describe the property, its location, assessed
value if exceeding P50,000. Aside from notices,
the law requires PUBLICATION in a newspaper so
that many people can read it.
You try to go there in the Hall of Justice, may
bulletin board diyan sa labas. Notices are posted
there. If you are interested in buying something,
para mura, tingnan mo diyan.

The law is very detailed now. The notice must

specify the date of the sale, time, place etc. And
the SC ruled that these requirements are to be
strictly complied with.
For example: You do not comply with the posting
in 3 conspicuous places. Dalawa lang sa iyo, that
is VOID. The SC said the requirements of the law
for the holding of the public auction should be
strictly followed. Why? Because in a public
auction, you are depriving somebody of his
property the judgment debtor. So, all the
requirements of the law intended to deprive the
owner of his ownership over his property should
be followed.
Even lawyers sometimes do not pay much
attention to this Rule 39. It is perhaps because of
the length of the rule or the length of the
provisions. Lawyers usually have a general idea,
not really the details. Oftentimes, they rely on the
sheriff eh. They presume that the sheriff knows
more about the details because the latter is
responsible for enforcing it. Actually, the sheriff
knows less than the lawyers because many of
them are not lawyers naman eh.
Illustration based on Deans experience:
There is a property located in Panacan which is
owned by Corporation X. Corporation X sold the
property to Corporation Y. (xx end of tape xx)
Dean does not know who was at fault. Definitely,
the custodian, instead of registering the
transaction in the Register of Deeds so that a title
may be issued in the name of the buyer, tinago!
Nalimutan ang pag-register ng Deed of Sale. Yun
pala, the seller, Corporation X, has a creditor also
in Davao. The creditor sued Corporation X for a
sum of money. Corporation X lost the case and
the creditor looked for property to levy. He found
that piece of land in Panacan. Corporation X said,
naibenta na iyan.
The buyer, Corporation Y did not know there was
an auction sale of that property. The buyer
entered into a deal with a corporation in Japan.
One of the requirements of the Japanese buyer is:
please list down all your assets, all your
properties. Of course, Corporation Y included that
land in Panacan in the list. Saan man ang titulo?
Walaaa. Nalimutan i-register.
Who should bear the loss??
The BUYER
CORPORATION because he did not register the

sale. He was given the option to pay the loan plus

P200,000 damages and interest. But if Rule 39 is
to be followed strictly, Dean says the sheriff
cannot make it. Meron talagang malimutan
because sheriffs usually are not lawyers. Rule 39
is so detailed that you cannot easily follow the
requirements. Isa-isahin mo iyan, pag may nakita
kang mali, you file a motion to annul the
execution.
I (Dean) said: I will recommend to the plaintiff
company na bayaran ka rin pero hindi naman
P200,000. Masyadong malaki yan. Nakabayad na
ang buyer sa owner tapos babayaran pa rin ang
utang sa creditor? I talked to the corporation and
made a compromise. We settled for P80,000.
Kung ayaw niya ituloy ang kaso. Hindi nga naregister and Deed of Sale pero mali-mali naman
ang levy. What if ma-annul ang levy, the plaintiff
will get nothing. Chances are, hahabulin niya ang
seller ng property. So, this is an example of a
dead case being resurrected to life because of
the principle: nagkamali ang sheriff sa execution.
Dean also stressed that if the trial for annulment
of the execution proceeds, the court might
dismiss it because the sheriffs mistakes ay maliit
lang. Its not really substantial. But Dean is proud
that he had succeeded to scare the plaintiff!
[ehem!]
TERCERIA (THIRD-PARTY CLAIM)
SECTION 16. Proceedings where property
claimed by third person. If the property
levied on is claimed by any person other
than the judgment obligor or his agent, and
such person makes an affidavit of his title
thereto or right to the possession thereof,
stating the grounds of such right or title,
and serves the same upon the officer
making the levy and a copy thereof upon
the judgment obligee, the officer shall not
be bound to keep the property, unless such
judgment obligee, on demand of the officer,
files a bond approved by the court to
indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum
not less than the value of the property
levied on.
In case of disagreement as to such value,
the same shall be determined by the court
issuing the writ of execution. No claim for
damages for the taking or keeping of the
property may be enforced against the bond

unless the action therefor is filed within one

hundred twenty days from the date of the
filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages
for the taking or keeping of the property, to
any third-party claimant if such bond is
filed. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent such claimant or any third person
from vindicating his claim to the property in
a separate action, or prevent the judgment
obligee from claiming damages in the same
or a separate action against a third-party
claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly
spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in
favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or
any officer duly representing it, the filing of
such bond shall not be required, and in case
the sheriff or levying officer is sued for
damages as a result of the levy, he shall be
represented by the Solicitor General and if
held liable therefore, the actual damages
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the
National Treasurer out of such funds as may
be appropriated for the purpose. (17a)

Section 16 is a third-party claim procedure in

execution. In Spanish, it is called the remedy of
TERCERIA.
ILLUSTRATION: Lolo decided to go on a prolong
vacation and he entrusted to Karen (ang
paborito ni Lolo) all his personal property like
appliances TV, refrigerator, car, etc. Karen used
the property owned by Lolo while he was not
around. Unknown to Lolo, Karen has a pending
civil case filed by Gina. Gina obtained a judgment
against Karen. There was levy on execution. The
sheriff went to the premises of Karen, he found
all these properties and he enforced the levy.
Lolo came home and went to get the property
from Karen. Karen said, they were all levied by
the sheriff. Lolo is a person who is not the
defendant but his properties were erroneously
levied because the sheriff thought they belong to
Karen who was in possession of them.
Q: What is the remedy of Lolo who is not a
defendant?
A: The remedy is to apply Section 16, Rule 39
You file with the sheriff, copy furnish Gina, what is
known as the third-party claim or TERCERIA.
Terceria is an affidavit asserting that he is the

owner of the property levied. So with that the

sheriff is now placed on guard because the sheriff
may be held liable if he continues to sell the
property of the defendant. So, he is not bound to
the proceedings regarding the sale unless the
judgment obligee, on demand of the sheriff, files
a bond approved by the court to indemnify a third
party claimant in the sum not less than the value
of the property levied on.
Suppose sabi ni Gina: Huwag kang maniwala
diyan. Kalokohan iyan. Drama lang yan ni Karen
at Lolo. Proceed with the auction sale! Gina has
to file a bond if he insists that the auction sale
must proceed. Gina must put up a bond approved
by the court to indemnify the third-party
claimant, a sum not less than the value of the
property. If the property is worth half a million,
the bond must also be half a million. Then
auction sale may proceed because theres
already a bond to answer for the damages. The
sale may go on despite the third party claim.
THIRD-PARTY CLAIM vs. THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT
Now, do not confuse a third-party claim under
Rule 39 with a third-party complaint under Rule 6.
Q: What is a third-party complaint under Rule 6?
A: A third-party complaint under Rule 6 is a
PLEADING filed by a defendant against the
third person not a party to the action for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or
any other relief in respect of the plaintiffs
complaint.
Q: What is a third-party claim under Rule
39?
A: A third-party claim (terceria) under RULE
39 is an AFFIDAVIT made by a third person
who claims to be entitled to the property in
the custody of a sheriff by virtue of a writ of
execution.
The one who files a third party claim is
technically called third-party CLAIMANT. The one
who files a third party complaint is called thirdparty PLAINTIFF. I notice that even in SC
decisions, the SC commits that lapse: The
defendant filed a third party complaint or
sometimes third party claimant. But actually,
the correct term is third-party plaintiff.

Q: Now, under the law, where will you file your

third-party claim?
A: You file it with the sheriff although legally, it is
considered as it is filed in the court because the
sheriff is only an agent of the court. The sheriff
does not have the power to rule on the legal
issues. Only the judge can. And it is the court
which decides on the validity of a third party
claim.
Q: If I am the third person and I want to vindicate
my claim to that property, is a third party claim
procedure the only remedy I have under the law?
Even if theres a third party claim, auction sale
may proceed as long as theres a bond. But I
want the auction sale not to proceed and I want
the property to be returned in my favor, do I have
any other remedy?
A: YES. Second paragraph: Nothing herein
contained shall prevent such claimant or any
third person from vindicating his claim to the
property in a SEPARATE ACTION. So, the remedy
of third-party claim is NOT exclusive. There is
nothing in Section 16 which says that a third
person is deprived of a right to file a separate
action.
As the lawyer of Lolo, I have another option:
instead of filing a third party claim, I would file a
case in court the separate case would name
Gina as the defendant. The cause of action is that
the sheriff mistakenly or erroneously levied the
properties not owned by Karen because I am the
real owner. Since there was a mistaken levy, I am
also asking the court to declare the levy as null
and void, the auction sale should not proceed.
The court might rule in my favor, so a separate
action is allowed. Thus, a third-party claim is not
the only remedy available under the law for the
third party claimant.
The second part also contains a new provision,
or prevent the judgment obligee from
claiming damages in the same or a separate
action against a third party claimant who files a
frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
Remember that it is possible for a third-party
claimant to be a dummy when it is a frivolous
claim, without basis or spurious, para tulungan
lang niya ang defendant. There are people like

that. Now, under the new law, the prevailing

party has the right to claim damages against the
third-party claimant for filing frivolous claims. He
can claim the damages in the same action or in a
separate action.
Now, many people do not really understand what
is a third-party claim, even some lawyers:
Q: Suppose I am the lawyer of Lolo, bakit pa ako
mag-file ng another case? Can I not just complain
to the court which rendered the decision? Can I
not just file a motion asking the judge to order
the release of the property? Is a separate action
not a violation of the rule against multiplicity of
suits?
A: NO! You cannot bring out the issue to
determine the ownership of the property.
INTERVENTION here is not proper. [Is this not a
ground
for
intervention?
GROUNDS
FOR
INTERVENTION: (1) the intervenor has legal
interest in the subject matter; (2) the intervenor
has an interest in the success of either parties;
(3) the intervenor has an interest against both
parties; and (4) The intervenor is adversely
affected by a distribution of a property in the
custody of a court or an officer thereof.]
The SC said YOU CANNOT INTERVENE
because under Rule 19, an intervention can
only be done at any time before judgment.
But here in Rule 39, we are now on the
stage of execution meron ng judgment!
Tapos na ang kaso. [Gago!!] Intervention comes
to late. The judge has already decided the case.
Now, bakit bigyan mo naman siya ng bagong
trabaho? Thats another issue different from a
case already tried. So, a separate action is the
proper remedy.
On the other hand, such doctrine should be
reconciled with what the SC said in the case of
SY vs. DISCAYA
181 SCRA 378
HELD: If your property was erroneously levied
under Rule 39, you can seek relief from the very
same court which rendered the judgment by
simply filing a motion to question the actuation of
the sheriff, because execution is part of the
process in that case and the sheriff is an officer of
the court and the court has the complete control
over the actuation of the sheriff. Therefore, why

require the 3rd-party to file another action when

he can seek relief in the same case? Meaning,
the third party can seek relief in the same
case but only to determine whether the
sheriff acted rightly or wrongly, BUT not for
the purpose of determining the issue of
ownership. Questions of ownership cannot
be decided here. There must be a separate
action for the issue of ownership.
A third person whose property was seized by a
sheriff to answer for the obligation of the
judgment debtor may invoke the supervisory
power of the court which authorized such
execution. Upon due application by the third
person and after summary hearing, the court
may command that the property be released
from the mistaken levy and restored to the
rightful owner or possessor. What said court can
do in these instances, however, is limited to a
determination of whether the sheriff has acted
rightly or wrongly in the performance of his
duties in the execution of judgment, more
specifically, if he has indeed taken hold of
property not belonging to the judgment debtor.
The court does not and cannot pass upon
the question of title to the property, with
any character of finality. It can treat of the
matter only insofar as may be necessary to
decide if the sheriff has acted correctly or
not.
So, the court that renders the judgment
cannot decide on the issue of ownership to
a third person. So your remedy is to file
another case. But in the case of DISCAYA,
the court which renders the judgment can
determine whether the sheriff has acted
wrongly or correctly. And if it is wrong it
can order the property erroneously levied
to be released without need of filing a
separate action.
Q: So how do you reconcile the two doctrines?
A: If it is obvious that the sheriff committed
a mistake 100% mistake, i.e. he levied
property belonging to a third person who is
not a defendant to require a third person
to go to court and file another case will be
tedious. Why can he not seek relief from
the same court? Anyway if it is very obvious
that the sheriff acted wrongly, that is only
incidental.

But when the issue is whether the property

is owned by the defendant or the third
person, and the issue is controversial who
is the rightful owner that cannot be
decided summarily by the court which
rendered decision. It should be threshed
out in an independent separate civil action.
So that will be the consideration.
The SC summarized all these remedies in the
1995 case of:
EVANGELISTA vs. PENSERGA
242 SCRA 702
HELD: The remedies of a third person whose
property was seized by the sheriff to answer for
the obligation of a judgment obligor are the
following:
1.
Invoke the supervisory power of the
court which authorized such execution (Sy
vs. Discaya);
2.
Terceria - third party claim (Rule 39,
Section 16); and
3.
Any proper action to vindicate his
claim to the property, meaning a separate
civil action. (second paragraph, Section 16,
Rule 39)
So these are the three remedies of a third person
whose property was seized by a sheriff to answer
for the obligation of another person.
Sec. 17.
Penalty for selling without notice, or
removing or defacing notice. - An officer selling
without the notice prescribed by section 15
of this Rule shall be liable to pay punitive
damages in the amount of five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured
thereby, in addition to his actual damages,
both to be recovered by motion in the same
action; and a person willfully removing or
defacing the notice posted, if done before
the sale, or before the satisfaction of the
judgment if it be satisfied before the sale,
shall be liable to pay five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured by
reason thereof, in addition to his actual
damages, to be recovered by motion in the
same action. (19a)

Notices in the auction sale should be posted in

three public places. For example, you go to the
hall of justice. You can see there a bulletin board,
maraming nakalagay, half man niyan mga notice
of public aution ba. Now, do not go there and
kunin ang mga papel doon. Baka multahan ka.
You are not supposed to remove or deface them.
Sec. 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. (20a)
Q: Can the debtor stop the auction sale? Is there
a way for the debtor to prevent the sale of his
property?
A: YES, if the obligor pay the amount required by
the execution and the costs bayaran mo lahat
ang utang mo, di wala na. Thats what the law
says. For example, the bank is foreclosing your
mortgage and sell the property at public auction.
To stop the bank from proceeding with the sale,
you go to the bank and pay all your obligations.
So, wala ng auction sale. But you have to pay all.
Kalahati lang ang bayaran ko. Ah, hindi puydi
yan.
Sec. 19. How property sold on execution; who
may direct manner and order of sale. All sales
of property under execution must be made
at public auction, to the highest bidder, 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 property or proceeds of the
sale shall be promptly delivered to the
judgment
obligor
or
his
authorized
representative, unless otherwise directed
by the judgment or order of the court.
When the sale is of real property, consisting
of several known lots, they must be sold
separately; or, when a portion of such real
property is claimed by a third person, he
may require it to be sold separately. When
the sale is of personal property capable of
manual delivery, it must be sold within view
of those attending the same and in such
parcels as are likely to bring the highest
price. The judgment obligor, if present at
the sale, may direct the order in which
property, real or personal, shall be sold,

when such property consists of several

known lots or parcels which can be sold to
advantage separately. Neither the officer
conducting the execution sale, nor his
deputies, can become a purchaser, nor be
interested directly or indirectly in any
purchase at such sale. (21a)
Execution sale shall be done at public auction.
The public is invited to bid kaya may public
notice. There are even publication for real
property TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. How does it
happen? Normally, ang unang magbi-bid diyan is
iyong creditor. And normally, his bid will be equal
to the judgment in his favor. For example, the
judgment against B is P1 million which includes
principal and interest. Ang bid ko P1 million din.
Okay lang, bahala ka kung sinong mas mataas
diyan. That is how it normally happens.
Q: Now, suppose there are many properties
levied. What is the process?
A: You sell them one by one. Hindi pwede sabaysabay. [Maysa-maysa laeng balong!] After
sufficient property has been sold and that is
enough to satisfy the debt, then do not sell
anymore. Do not sell more than what is
necessary to satisfy the judgment.
When the sale is of real property, consisting of
several known lots, they must be sold
separately.
Years ago, I witnessed an auction sale of
subdivision here. Obviously, the owner of the
subdivision could not pay his account. So there
was a public auction. Of course, the subdivision
consists of more than 100 lots iba-iba ang
location, may mapa eh. Now, you cannot say,
Alright, 150 lots. Pila man? Hindi puydi iyan.
Isa-isa dapat Lot #1, lot #2, lot #3 kaya pa
ba iyan? I may be interested to buy only one lot.
So, lot #1, highest bidder, lot #2until the
proceeds are enough to satisfy the account. So
hindi pwedeng one time, garapalan iyan, kapal
ng sheriff niyan. Mga 170 lots ah hindi pwede
iyanisa-isa dapat. That is how tedious it is.
The law says, the debtor, if he is present, he can
intervene. He says, Alright, unahin mo muna
ito because he may know of somebody who is
willing to buy his property. So he can tell the
sheriff, If you want to sell unahin mo muna ito

because merong malaking bayad yan eh in

order for his other properties to be saved from
the execution.
Now, the last paragraph, the last sentence says,
neither the officer conducting the execution
sale, nor his deputies, can become a purchaser,
nor be interested directly or indirectly in any
purchase at such sale. So the sheriff and his
deputy cannot participate in the auction, these
are prohibited interest.
I think there is also a prohibition in the Civil Code
on this on prohibited sales. The judge cannot
be interested in the sale of a property which is
the subject matter of the litigation. The lawyer
here cannot purchase a property involving a case
which he handled, to prevent conflict of interest.
Sec. 20. Refusal of purchaser to pay. If a
purchaser refuses to pay the amount bid by
him for property struck off to him at a sale
under execution, the officer may again sell
the property to the highest bidder and shall
not be responsible for any loss occasioned
thereby; 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 amount of such payment shall be
for the benefit of the person entitled to the
proceeds of the execution, unless the
execution has been fully satisfied, in which
event such proceeds shall be for the benefit
of the judgment obligor. The officer may
thereafter reject any subsequent bid of
such purchaser who refuses to pay. (22a)
Auction sale: We are now going to sell this piece
of property. Alright, highest bidderP10,000,
next P11,000, P12,000, P13,000. Sabi noong
isa, Alright, P40,000! Sheriff: Any other bid?
wala na? Ok wala na! then, its sold to you. Saan
ang pera mo? Bidder: Wala akong pera, biro
lang iyon.
My golly! Pwede kang i-contempt niyan ba!
[nagpapatawa, hindi naman kalbo!] You can be
declared in contempt of court. Hindi ito biruan.
This is a proceeding. So we will repeat the
procedure kasi wala man. Kalokohan pala ito.
Bwiset!

Q:
May he bid again?
A:
No more. The officer may thereafter reject
any subsequent bid of such purchaser who
refused to pay. So do not fool around there when
you make a bid. You must be serious and you
must be ready to pay for you bid.
Sec. 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. When
the purchaser is the judgment obligee, and
no third-party claim has been filed, he need
not pay the amount of the bid if it does not
exceed the amount of his judgment. If it
does, he shall pay only the excess. (23a)
Q: Can the judgment obligee the creditorplaintiff participate in the auction sale?
A: YES, under Section 21. The sale is open to the
public. As a matter of fact, in normal auction sale,
the first bidder is the plaintiff himself.

you if it turns out the claim is frivolous. If the

third party claim turns out to be valid, it will be
given to the real owner because the property that
you bought turned out to be owned by somebody
who is not your debtor.
Sec. 22. Adjournment of sale. By written
consent of the judgment obligor and
obligee,
or
their
duly
authorized
representatives, the officer may adjourn the
sale to any date and time agreed upon by
them.
Without such agreement, he may adjourn
the sale from day to day if it becomes
necessary to do so for lack of time to
complete the sale on the day fixed in the
notice or the day to which it was adjourned.
(24a)

A: Suppose, he is the highest bidder. So the

property is declared sold to him. Is he obliged to
pay his bid?
A: GENERAL RULE: NO. Why? You simply apply
the law on compensation I owe you money on
the purchase price for your property but you also
owe me money based on the judgment. So quits
na tayo. Wala ng bayaran! Iyang property na ang
pinaka-bayad mo.

Suppose the auction sale was scheduled today.

Hindi natapos because there are many properties
to be sold like 200 lots. Then we can continue
tomorrow.

EXCEPTION: Two (2) instances when obligee may

be required to pay for his bid:

Q:
Do you know why these things are very
important?
A:
Because you already advertised that it will
be held on this day. So any change on the date
has to be strictly complied with. Thats the
reason behind these.

1.)
When his bid is higher than the
judgment. So he has to pay the cash for the
excess or
EXAMPLE: The judgment in my favor is P1 million,
my bid is P1.2 million and Im the highest bidder.
So I have to pay you the balance, the P200,000
because that is more than the judgment in my
favor.
2.)
when the property which is to
be sold is a subject of a third party claim
because it is really controversial whether
the property is really owned by the
judgment debtor.
So, if there is a 3rd party claim, he has to pay
because it is controversial - as to who really is the
owner of the property. Of course, iyong pera
naka-deposit iyan. Your money will be returned to

Suppose we will continue next week. Then both

parties must agree by written consent of the
judgment obligor and obligee if we will postpone
it to another date na mas malayo.

Q:
Now, what properties can be sold at public
auction?
A:
Its either personal property or real
property. We are sure about that.
TWO TYPES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY:
1.)
one capable of manual delivery; and
2.)
one not capable of manual delivery
iyong mga intangibles ba!
Q:
What is the procedure for the sale of
personal property capable of manual delivery and
one not capable of manual delivery?
A:
You have Section 23 and Section 24.

Q:
When it comes to real property, what is the
procedure?
A:
The procedure is Section 25.
So lets go over there, conveyance to purchaser
of personal property capable of manual delivery.
Like a car and appliance or any other tangible
object.
Sec. 23. Conveyance to purchaser of personal
property capable of manual delivery. When the
purchaser of any personal property, capable
of manual delivery, pays the purchase price,
the officer making the sale must deliver the
property to the purchaser and, if desired,
execute and deliver to him a certificate of
sale. The sale conveys to the purchaser all
the rights which the judgment obligor had
in such property as of the date of the levy
on execution or preliminary attachment.
(25a)
Sec. 24. Conveyance to purchaser of personal
property not capable of manual delivery. When
the purchaser of any personal property, not
capable of manual delivery, pays the
purchase price, the officer making the sale
must execute and deliver to the purchaser
a certificate of sale. Such certificate
conveys to the purchaser all the rights
which the judgment obligor had in such
property as of the date of the levy on
execution or preliminary attachment. (26a)
Q: What is the procedure for the sale of property
capable of manual delivery?
A: When the property is CAPABLE OF MANUAL
DELIVERY, and you are the highest bidder, I will
deliver the car to you, and execute and deliver to
you a certificate of sale. The certificate of sale
should be signed by the sheriff to prove that you
are the highest bidder. And with that certificate of
sale, you can register that with the LTO.
Automatically, the LTO will transfer the ownership
and the registration of the car in your name.
Q: What is the procedure for the sale of property
NOT CAPABLE OF MANUAL DELIVERY? Mga
intangible assets?
A: There is nothing to physically give you. But
according to Section 24, the officer making the
same must execute and deliver to the purchaser

a certificate and that is actually tantamount to

delivery already.
Q:
When you buy a personal property at an
auction sale and the sheriff executes a certificate
of sale in your favor, do you become the owner of
the property?
A: Both sections say, the sale conveys to the
purchaser all the rights which the judgment
obligor have in such property as of the date
of the levy on execution. At the sale, you
acquire all the rights which the obligor had
in such property.
You become the owner
because you acquire the judgment obligors right
of ownership over such property.
BUT suppose the obligor holding the property is
not the owner of the property although he has
some right over the property and his rights where
sold, then you only acquire whatever rights he
has over the property. You do not acquire
ownership. A spring cannot rise higher than its
source.
EXAMPLE: You are the defendant but you enjoy
rights over the property as usufructuary you are
the beneficial owner of the property but not the
naked owner. And your rights as usufructuary
were levied. I am the purchaser. Can I acquire
naked ownership? Of course NOT. I only acquire
beneficial ownership. I only acquire whatever
right the debtor has over the property.
The SC made a commentary on that issue on the
nature of the sheriffs sale and one of which is
the case of
LEYSON vs. TAADA
109 SCRA 66 [1981]
HELD: At a sheriffs sale they do not sell the
land advertised to sell, although that is a
common acceptation, but they simply sell what
interest in that land the judgment debtor has;
and if you buy his interest, and it afterwards
develops that he has none, you are still liable on
your bid, because you have offered so much for
his interest in open market, and it is for you to
determine before you bid what is his interest in
the property.
So, it is for you to determine what his interest is
before you bid. That is why you look at the
sheriffs notice of sale, meron mang warning ba:

Notice to prospective bidders. You are advised

to find out whatever interest the debtor has.
For EXAMPLE: You buy the land and it turns out
na hindi pala may-ari iyong taong iyon, iba ang
rights niya. Then you are to uphold his rights,
Ah, I will hold the sheriff liable! No you cannot.
There is no warranty here on ownership.
So, do not confuse this with private sale of
propertywarranty against evictionwala
iyan sa sheriffs sale. The sheriff does not
warrant the ownership of the property. The
law only warrants the guarantee that you
will acquire whatever interest he has. And if
his interest is less than what you expect,
pasensha ka. This is a case of CAVEAT
EMPTOR let the buyer beware. That is the
thing you have to remember about action
sale.
Sec. 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate
thereof given to purchaser and filed with registry
of deeds. Upon a sale of real property, the
officer must give to the purchaser a
certificate of sale containing:
(a) A particular description of the real
property sold;
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or
parcel;
(c) The whole price paid by him;
(d) A statement that the right of
redemption expires one (1) year from the
date of the registration of the certificate of
sale.
Such certificate must be registered in the
registry of deeds of the place where the
property is situated. (27a)
If the property sold at public auction is a piece of
land (real property), the sheriff will execute in
your favor what is known as the sheriffs
CERTIFICATE OF SALE. Anong nakalagay diyan? It
is practically what a normal deed of sale provides
the description of the land, the property sold,
the whole price paid, the lot if there are different
parcels, how much per parcel.
The important paragraph is [d]: A statement
that the right of redemption expires one (1) year
from the date of the registration of the certificate
of sale.

Q:
What is the main difference between a sale
of personal property under Section 23 and sale of
real property under Section 25?
A:
When the property sold at public
auction is real property, the debtor has one
(1) year to redeem the property. Thats
what you call the RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
from the purchaser. But if the property sold
at public auction is personal property, like
cars or appliances, there is no right of
redemption.
There is no right of redemption in personal
property. That is only recognized in real property.
So if your (personal) property is sold at public
auction, and then there is a highest bidder, you
cannot say, Anyway, pwede ko namang bawiin
iyon. NO, wala iyang bawi, kanya na yan. But if
the property sold at public auction is real
property, that is not kissing your land goodbye.
You have one year to redeem it. That is your last
chance.
Q: Summary: If you are the highest bidder, when
do you acquire ownership of the property sold in
a auction sale?
A: It DEPENDS whether the property sold is
personal or real:
a.)
If it is PERSONAL PROPERTY, the
title is transferred after payment of the
purchase price and delivery upon the
purchaser. Delivery is either physical or
symbolic; (Sections 23 & 24)
b.)
If it is REAL PROPERTY, the title
is transferred, not after the auction sale,
but after expiration of the right to redeem.
(Section 25)
There is no right of redemption under personal
property. It can only be exercised in real property.
Now, take note that the period to redeem is ONE
YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE REGISTRATION of
the certificate of sale in the office of the registrar
of deeds. It is NOT from the date of the auction
sale.
Under the old law, malabo eh: from the date of
sale. Anong sale? Date of the auction sale or
date of the issuance of certificate of sale?
According to the SC, the date of the registration.
That is the start of the counting. Kaya nga if there

is a sale in your favor, pag i-delay mo ang

registration, ikaw ang kawawa because the
longer you delay it, the redemption period is
being stretched. Instead of cutting after one year,
period of redemption has not been cut off kaya
there must be a registration.
Under the present rule, the right of redemption
expires after one (1) year from the date of the
registration of the certificate of sale. Under the
old law, it expires after twelve (12) months.
Q: Is the one year under the present rule and
the 12 months under the old rules the same?
A: NO, and we know that 12 months is 360 days.
One month is 30 days times 12 is 360 days. But
one year is 365 days. So they are not the same.
Thats why before, the redemption period for
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage is one year.
And the redemption in execution under Rule 39 is
12 months. So there is a difference. But NOW,
pareho na.
Thats why the old case of STATE INVESTMENT
HOUSE when the SC made the distinction
between the one year period for mortgage and
the 12 months period under Rule 39 is already
MEANINGLESS because the one year period. NOW
is uniform.
Q:
Can you attack the validity of an auction
sale?
A:
GENERAL RULE: NO, you cannot attack
the auction sale on the presumption that
every fair sale is final. There is a
presumption of
regular performance of
duty by the sheriff.
EXCEPTION: When an execution may be set
aside:
1.)
When it is shown from the
nature of the irregularity or from intrinsic
facts injury resulted therefrom. (Navarro
vs. Navarro, 76 Phil. 122) Meaning, there
were serious irregularities committed by
the officer in conducting the sale like no
publication, no notice, no prior levy, etc.;
2.)
When the price obtained at the
execution sale is shockingly inadequate and
it is shown that a better price can be

obtained at a resale. (Barrozo vs. Macadaeg,

83 Phil. 378) Meaning, the highest bid is
shockingly inadequate.
EXAMPLE: I owed you for P100,000 P100,000
ang judgment! And what is levied is a brand new
Mercedes Benz. So sobra na yon na pambayad sa
utang. But the highest bid is P30,000. Just
imagine the highest bid is 30,000, tapos meron
pang deficiency judgment for P70,000 of
course, there is something wrong here. So, that is
an exception, no! That is, when the price
obtained at the execution sale is SHOCKINGLY
INADEQUATE to the senses and it is shown that a
better price can be obtained.
Shocking to the senses means hindi naman
yung the difference is very slight.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The rule
that you can question the validity of the
auction sale if the price obtained is
shockingly inadequate applies ONLY when
the property sold is PERSONAL property.
The exception does not apply when the
property sold is real property because if the
property sold is a personal property, there
is no right of redemption. But if the
property sold is real property, you cannot
complain because, anyway, you have one
year to pay and the redemption price is
lower. So, you are not really prejudiced. So why
are you complaining? Thats what the SC said in
the case of
RAMOS vs. PABLO
146 SCRA 5 [1986]
HELD: A reading of plaintiffs' (petitioners')
complaint shows that inadequacy of price was
raised as one of the issues. Assuming that the
price was shockingly low, the same cannot vitiate
the auction sale for redemption would be
comparatively easier.
That is because the property sold in RAMOS is
real property. Pero kung personal property, I think
it is really unfair. You lose the property forever
with a very small amount.
Sec. 26. Certificate of sale where property
claimed by third person. When a property sold
by virtue of a writ of execution has been

claimed by a third person, the certificate of

sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant to
sections 23, 24 and 25 of this Rule shall
make express mention of the existence of
such third-party claim. (28a)

If the property sold at public auction is a subject

of a third party claim under Section 16, the
certificate of sale to the property is issued
subject to the outcome of the third party claim by
a stranger.
Sec. 27. Who may redeem real property so sold.
Real property sold as provided in the last
preceding section, or any part thereof sold
separately, may be redeemed in the manner
hereinafter provided, by the following
persons:
(a) The judgment obligor, or his successor
in interest in the whole or any part of the
property;
(b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an
attachment, judgment or mortgage on the
property sold, or on some part thereof,
subsequent to the lien under which the
property was sold. Such redeeming creditor
is termed a redemptioner. (29a)
That is an important section.
Q:
Who are entitled to redeem real property?
A:
There are two (2):
1.)
The judgment obligor or his
successor-in-interest; and
2.)
A creditor having a lien by
virtue of an attachment, judgment or
mortgage on the property sold, subsequent
to the lien under which the property was
sold. He is know as the REDEMPTIONER.
JUDGMENT OBLIGOR OR HIS SUCCESSORSIN-INTEREST
Judgment obligor is clear the defendant who
lost the case the defendant whose property was
levied. Or, his successor-in-interest. For EXAMPLE:
During the one year period to redeem, the
judgment debtor died. So it could be his heirs, his
children, his spouse who could exercise the right
to redeem because they step into his shoes. Also,
successor-in-interest would also refer to a person

to whom the obligor assigned or transferred his

right to redeem.
Q: Can the defendant sell, aside from
transferring, his right to another person?
A: YES, because the right to redeem is
property by itself. My right to redeem is
also property such as an interest to the real
property which can be the subject matter of
a sale.
EXAMPLE: Alright, may property ako worth P5
million. Na-sheriff for P2 million. Wala na, hindi ko
na kaya. Ibenta ko sa iyo for P3 million. Give me
P1 million cash at ikaw na ang mag redeem sa
purchaser. Ginansiya ka pa rin di ba? P5 million
gud iyon. So I can sell, and once I sell the right to
redeem to you, you are classified as successor-ininterest for the judgment obligor.
REDEMPTIONER
Q: Define redemptioner.
A: A redemptioner is a creditor having a lien by
virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage
on the property sold, or on some part thereof,
subsequent to the lien under which the property
was sold.
ILLUSTRATION: Suppose there is a title owned by
X and he has four (4) creditors. Lets say the
property is worth P10 million and he owes A for
P2 million. So A levied the property. Now theres
another judgment in favor of B and there is no
other property, ito na lang. So ang ginawa ni B,
tinatakan niya another P2 million.
Under the Law on Land Titles and Deeds, B has
inferior rights. In other words, the right of A is
superior to the right of B. A has no obligation to
respect the right of B but B is obliged to respect
the right of A. And Assuming that there is a third
creditor C for another P2 million. Thus,
subsequent holder din si C. If D is also a creditor,
apat na sila.
Of course, the right of A is superior. He levies the
property, may one year to redeem. Sabi ni X,
Wala na akong property, so ano pang pakialam
ko kay B? Suppose X will not redeem, so A
becomes the owner after one year. What happens
to B, C and D? Bura lahat kayo because you are

underneath. A has no obligation to respect your

liens.
In other words, A acquires the entire property for
only P2M because hindi na interesado si X.
Shempre si B interesado. So B will pay A within
the redemption period para matanggal si A. Yung
utang ni X na P2M binayaran niya kay A. So P4
million na ang hawak ni B. And B will now be the
number one. B will now acquire the property. Pero
sabi ni C, Hindi pwede iyan, lugi ako! Kasi
pagna-acquire na ni B ang property, patay na
naman si C and D. Sabi ni C, Bababuyin, ah
este Babayaran kita (B)! O ayan ang P4 million.
Saksak mo sa baga mo!D can do the same thing
to C.
Iyan ang tinatawag na redemptioners people
who have lien subsequent because that is your
only way to protect your lien over the property.
Anyway, even if D will pay everybody, hindi pa rin
lugi because the property is worth P10 million.
But he spent P8 million because he had to buy or
redeem it from people who are ahead of him.
That is the illustration of redemptioners, they
have a personality or a right to redeem the
property from whoever is ahead of him in order to
protect his lien over the property because if he
will not redeem, the quickest one will acquire the
property free from any lien or encumbrance. Eh,
kung wala na yung property? Patay na ako. What
property will I get to satisfy the account wala na
akong property, isa nalang. That is the rule on
redemption. That is what Section 27 is all about.
Take note that redemptioners cannot
redeem if the judgment debtor redeems.
(For Review Class) Now, let us discuss the case of
PALICTE vs. REMOLITE, infa. This case is
instructive on the issue of right of redemption
under Rule 39 in relation to special proceedings
the estate of deceased person. This is what
happened:
PALICTE vs. REMOLETE
154 SCRA 132 [1987]
FACTS: A man lost a case and his properties
were levied. So lets say his properties were
levied for P1 million. But during the 1-year period
of redemption, he died. And he is survived by 5
children. And there is an administrator appointed

by the court to administer the properties of the

deceased. During the one period to redeem, one
of five children, siguro mayaman, redeemed the
properties of their father.
Take note that only one of the heirs redeemed
the entire property from the judgment creditorobligee. And one of the issues raised is whether
one heir alone has the personality to redeem
from the creditor the property of the estate when
there is an administrator. Remember, ha the
legal representative under the law, is the
administrator.
ISSUE #1: So, who has the right to redeem? The
heir or the administrator?
HELD: The HEIR has the right to redeem. At
the moment of the decedents death, the
heirs start to own the property, subject to
the decedents liabilities. In fact, they may
dispose of the same even while the
property is under administration. If the heirs
may dispose of their shares in the decedents
property even while it is under administration
with more reason should the heirs be allowed to
redeem redeemable properties despite the
presence of an administrator.
ISSUE #2: Must the one redeeming prove that
the other co-heirs, the administrator and the
court expressly agreed to the redemption? Is it
necessary for him to get their consent?
HELD: There is NO NEED for such prior
approval. While it may have been desirable, it is
not indispensable. There is likewise nothing in the
records to indicate that the redemption was not
beneficial to the estate. Anyway, the estate was
benefited. The property was returned to the
estate rather than acquired by the creditors.
ISSUE #3: How can one specific heir redeem
alone when his interest in the estate is not fixed
and determinate pending the order of distribution
by the court? He is just a 1/5 owner and then he
is redeeming everything, how can that be done?
HELD: It may be true that the interest of a
specific heir is not yet fixed and determinate
pending
the
order
of
distribution
BUT,
nonetheless,
the
heirs
interest
in
the
preservation of the estate and the recovery of its
properties is greater than anybody elses,
definitely more than the administrators who

merely holds it for the creditors, the heirs, and

the legatees.
ISSUE #4: Can we not consider the administrator
as the judgment-debtor himself and the only one
successor-in-interest?
HELD: NO. The estate of the deceased is the
judgment-debtor and the heirs who will
eventually acquire that estate should not be
prohibited from doing their share in its
preservation.
ISSUE #5: So, sabi ng redeeming heir, Okey, so
now let the property be registered in my name
because pera ko man ang ginamit. I spent my
money in paying the property including the
shares of my brothers and sisters who have no
money. Is the redeeming heir correct?
HELD: NO. The motion to transfer the titles
of the properties to the name of the
redeeming heir cannot prosper at this time.
Otherwise, to allow such transfer of title
would amount to a distribution of the
estate. That is tantamount to premature
distribution of the estate. You cannot
distribute the estate in favor of one heir
immediately.
So, what is the solution? The other heirs are,
therefore, given a six-month period to join
as co-redemptioners in the redemption
made by the petitioner before the motion to
transfer titles to the latters name may be
granted.
So meaning, if the other heirs are given 6
months, hindi nyo mabayaran, pwede na yan,
kasi pera man niya ang ginamit.
Sec. 28. Time and manner of, and amounts
payable on, successive redemptions; notice to be
given and filed. The judgment obligor, or
redemptioner, may redeem the property
from the purchaser, at any time within one
(1) year from the date of the registration of
the certificate of sale, by paying the
purchaser the amount of his purchase, with
one per centum per month interest thereon
in addition, up to the time of redemption,
together
with
the
amount
of
any
assessments or taxes which the purchaser
may have paid thereon after purchase, and
interest on such last named amount at the
same rate; and if the purchaser be also a

creditor having a prior lien to that of the

redemptioner, other than the judgment
under which such purchase was made, the
amount of such other lien, with interest.
Property so redeemed may again be
redeemed within sixty (60) days after the
last redemption upon payment of the sum
paid on the last redemption, with two per
centum thereon in addition, and the
amount of any assessments or taxes which
the last redemptioner may have paid
thereon after redemption by him, with
interest on such last-named amount, and in
addition, the amount of any liens held by
said last redemptioner prior to his own,
with interest. The property may be again,
and as often as a redemptioner is so
disposed, redeemed from any previous
redemptioner within sixty (60) days after
the last redemption, on paying the sum
paid on the last previous redemption, with
two per centum thereon in addition, and
the amounts of any assessments or taxes
which the last previous redemptioner paid
after the redemption thereon, with interest
thereon, and the amount of any liens held
by the last redemptioner prior to his own,
with interest.
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. (30a)
ILLUSTRATION: Brown Sugar is a judgment
obligor. She has four creditors (A, B, C, and D)
and all of them obtained judgment against her
and all of them levied on the same property.
Brown Sugar is given one year from the
registration of the sale to redeem it from A. Now,
suppose SUGAR cannot redeem, B will be the one
to redeem because the first redemptioner and
the judgment obligor have one year to redeem
from the date of registration. That is what Section
28
says
the
judgment
obligor,
or
redemptioner.Now, C is given 60 days to

redeem. After that, wala ng right. Suppose C was

able to redeem, D has another 60 days to redeem
from C.
Q: So what is the period of redemption?
A: There are two periods of redemption: The
judgment obligor and first redemptioner are
given ONE YEAR from the date of
registration of the certificate of sale to
redeem and after that all subsequent
redemptioners are given 60 days.
So the second redemptioner can redeem it within
60 days. So, within 60 days, the 3rd
redemptioner can redeem it. Pasa yan, in order
that the redemptioner can protect their lien over
the property. So, the redemption period is ONE
YEAR and 60 DAYS respectively.
Q: Now, suppose Brown Sugar or B would like to
redeem the property from A. How much will the
property be redeemed?
A: Under Section 28, the purchase or the bid
price for the property PLUS one percent per
month interest, and reimbursement for taxes of
the property with interest also. But definitely, the
redemption price = the bid price + 1% interest
month. So, if you will redeem after one year, the
bid price and 12% of the bid price.
ILLUSTRATION: So kung P1 million ang bid price
plus + P120,000 (1%/month) = P1.12 million
Now there are two interesting cases here which I
want you to remember. The conflicting ruling in
PNB vs. CA (140 SCRA 360) and the case of SY vs.
CA (172 SCRA 125). The two cases involved a
foreclosure of mortgage not execution but the
Rules of Court applies. Under the extra-judicial
foreclosure of mortgage Act 3135, the provision
of the Rules of Court are also applicable to
redemption in a foreclosure sale. So the provision
in Section 28 also applies to the redemption
during an extrajudicial foreclosure of property.
PNB vs. COURT OFAPPEALS
140 SCRA 360 [1985]
FACTS: Suppose I will borrow money from the
bank and stipulate an interest at 24% per annum.
During the auction sale, it was sold to the bank.
Within one year, you approach me, gusto mo na
i-redeem. Magkano ang bid priceP2M plus

interest of 2% per month for the next seven or

eight months. Sabihin ng debtor, No, 1% lang. Di
ba nakalagay sa law 1% lang. Pero ang usapan
natin is 3% monthly.
ISSUE: So which prevails - the 1% per month
under the Rules of Court or the 2% per month as
stipulated in the promissory note?
HELD: The 1% of the Rules of Court prevails.
Why? The rights of the debtor or creditor, the
bank for example, under the promissory note, or
even under the mortgage law, is only good up to
the auction sale. From the moment the auction
sale is finished and there was already a bid, we
are now talking of the one year period to redeem.
So the rate in the promissory note is no longer
applicable.
The case of PNB was somehow modified by the
SC in the subsequent case of Sy vs. CA (172
SCRA 125) where the facts are identical.
SY vs. COURT OF APPEALS
172 SCRA 125 [1989]
FACTS: They borrowed money from the bank at
2% a month and they failed to pay the loan.
Thus, there was a foreclosure of mortgage then
there was an execution of sale.
ISSUE: Within the one year period of redemption,
pila man ang interest? The debtor will say 1% but
according to the bank, it is 2% as stipulated.
Which will prevail?
HELD: The 3% a month stipulated under the
mortgage contract prevails. Why? Because
of a special law Section 78 of the General
Banking Act R.A. 337. Between Section 28
of Rule 39 and Section 78 of the General
Banking Act, the latter prevails because it
is a special law. It applies to banks.
The General Banking Act partakes of the nature
of an amendment to the mortgage law in so far
as the redemption price is concerned. When the
mortgagee or the creditor is a bank or banking
credit institution, Section 6 of the mortgage law
in relation to Section 28 of Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court is inconsistent with Section 78 of the
General Banking Act. So the bank rate prevails.

Paano nangyari ito? I have only one single

explanation. Hindi nakita ng mga abogado ng
PNB ang provision na iyon. They did not research
very well. They failed to cite the provision of the
General Banking Act which authorizes the bank to
continue charging the higher rate even during
the redemption period. Ginamit ng SC ang
general rule eh. So mas magaling ang lawyer
nung bank in the second case because they were
able to detect an exception under the general
rule.
You know, if you are a lawyer of a bank, you
must know all the laws regarding banks. Just the
same, if you are a labor lawyer, you master all
the labor laws. But if you are a bar candidate, you
master all laws! Yaaaann!

Sec. 29. Effect of redemption by judgment

obligor, and a certificate to be delivered and
recorded thereupon; to whom payments on
redemption made. If the judgment obligor
redeems, he must make the same payments
as are required to effect a redemption by a
redemptioner,
whereupon,
no
further
redemption shall be allowed and he is
restored to his estate.
The person to whom the redemption
payment is made must execute and deliver
to
him
a
certificate
of
redemption
acknowledged before a notary public or
other
officer
authorized
to
take
acknowledgments of conveyances of real
property. 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 purchaser or redemptioner,
or for him to the officer who made the sale.
(31a)
Q: Suppose Tikla redeems the property from
Joshua. If the sheriff will execute in favor of Tikla
a certificate of redemption, to whom should Tikla
pay?
A: The law says she can pay directly to the
purchaser, the redemptioner or the person
who made the sale.

Sec. 30. Proof required of redemptioner. A

redemptioner must produce to the officer,
or person from whom he seeks to redeem,
and serve with his notice to the officer a
copy of the judgment or final order under
which he claims the right to redeem,
certified by the clerk of the court wherein
the judgment or final order is entered; or, if
he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien,
a memorandum of the record thereof,
certified by the registrar of deeds; or an
original or certified copy of any assignment
necessary to establish his claim; and an
affidavit executed by him or his agent,
showing the amount then actually due on
the lien. (32a)
When the ORIGINAL OWNER wants to
redeem the property from B, there is NO
NEED for him to prove his right as a
judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has
the automatic right to redeem.
But when it is B, C or D (REDEMPTIONERS)
who wants to redeem, they MUST PROVE to
the sheriff that they are qualified to
redeem. They must prove their status because
not every person in the world has the right to
redeem. The right to redeem is only given to the
debtor,
the
successor-in-interest
or
the
redemptioner. Thus, you must prove your
personality to effect redemption.
Sec. 31. Manner of using premises pending
redemption; waste restrained.
Until
the
expiration
of
the
time
allowed
for
redemption, the court may, as in other
proper cases, restrain the commission of
waste on the property by injunction, on the
application of the purchaser or the
judgment obligee, with or without notice;
but it is not waste for a person in
possession of the property at the time of
the
sale,
or
entitled
to
possession
afterwards, during the period allowed for
redemption, to continue to
1.
use it in the same manner in which it
was previously used; or
2.
to use it in the ordinary course of
husbandry; or

3.
to make the necessary repairs to
buildings thereon while he occupies the
property. (33a)
PROBLEM: Suppose X is the debtor, A is the
purchaser because the highest bidder could be
any person. During the 1-year period to redeem,
who is in possessor of the property? The
purchaser or the debtor?
A: The DEBTOR. During the one-year period,
iyo pa rin yan. The buyer or the purchaser
cannot take over during the institution. He
has to wait for the one-year period to
expire before he can take over. Therefore, X
continues to occupy the property. He continues to
use it the same manner it was previously used.
Use it in the ordinary course of husbandry, to
make the necessary repairs to buildings thereon
while he occupies the property.
Q:
Suppose 8 months has passed. Sabi ni X,
Mukhang wala na akong pag-asa. Hindi ko na ito
mababayaran. Sige, wasakin ko na lang ang
property. Sirain ko na lang. I will make a waste of
the land. I will cut all the coconut trees. I will
destroy all the improvements. Para pag-takeover mo, wala na. Bwahahaha! What is the
remedy of A?
A:
He can ask the court to issue a writ of
injunction according to Section 31 an injunction
to restrain the commission of waste on the
property. So, you can also stop him by injunction.
Sec. 32. Rents, earnings and income of property
pending redemption. The purchaser or a
redemptioner shall not be entitled to
receive the rents, earnings and income of
the property sold on execution, or the value
of the use and occupation thereof when
such property is in the possession of a
tenant. All rents, earnings and income
derived
from
the
property
pending
redemption shall belong to the judgment
obligor until the expiration of his period of
redemption. (34a)
Section 32 is the continuation of Section 31.
Q: My property was sold on execution in your
favor. But my property earns income. May mga
tenants diyan na nagbabayad ng renta. During
the one-year period, who will get the rentals? The
purchaser or the debtor?

A:
The DEBTOR. He continues to receive
all the earnings. For defensive purposes, he
is still the owner. Do not say that, Ako ang
highest bidder, akin ang income! (Gunggong!)
You wait for the one-year redemption period to
expire to get the income.
Under the OLD rules, the 1964 Rules, during the
one-year period to redeem, the debtor/defendant
continues to get the income of the property but
when the creditor may opt: Your Honor, akin ang
income ha? Thats allowed by the old law. But
everything
is
deductible
also
form
the
redemption price. NGAYON wala na yan. 100%
the debtor is the one enjoying the income over
the property. That is a major amendment
introduced by the 1997 Rules.
Q: Now, what happens if after the lapse of one
year there is no redemption? What is the next
step?
A: That is Section 33:
Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at
expiration of redemption period; by whom
executed or given. If no redemption be made
within one (1) year from the date of the
registration of the certificate of sale, the
purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and
possession of the property; or, if so
redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have
elapsed and no other redemption has been
made, and notice thereof given, and the
time for redemption has expired, the last
redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance
and possession; but 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. The deed shall be executed by the
officer making the sale or by his successor
in office, and in the latter case shall have
the same validity as though the officer
making the sale had continued in office and
executed it.
Upon the expiration of the right of
redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner
shall be substituted to and acquire all the
rights, title, interest and claim of the
judgment obligor to the property as of the
time of the levy. The possession of the
property shall be given to the purchaser or
last redemptioner by the same officer

unless a third party is actually holding the

property adversely to the judgment obligor.
(35a)
If the period to redeem expires, no more right of
redemption. What will happen? The sheriff now
will now execute in favor of the highest bidder or
purchaser what is known as the final deed of
sale or DEED OF CONVEYANCE. Remember
that there are two documents here which the
sheriff executes in case of real property.
Q: What are they (two documents which the
sheriff executes in case of real property)?
A: The following:
1.)
CERTIFICATE OF SALE. After the
auction sale, he will execute in your favor
the certificate of sale under Section 25, by
the time you register that, you start
counting the one year.
2.)
DEED OF CONVEYANCE. If after
one year there is no redemption, a deed of
conveyance is executed. (Section 33)

POSSESSION under the Property Registration

Decree to take over the property.
Now, another interesting case about this stage in
relation to property exempted from execution, is
the case of
GOMEZ vs. GEALONE
203 SCRA 474 [1991]
FACTS: The property of the defendant was levied
and sold in a public auction to the highest bidder.
One year after, there was no redemption. Then
after the period has expired, here comes the
defendant questioning the auction sale because
the property was exempt from execution and the
property really turned out to be exempt from
execution.
ISSUE: Is there a deadline for a judgment debtor
to claim exemption from execution of his
property? Can the debtor still raise the issue that
the property is exempt from execution after the
expiration of the redemption period.

Although in an extra-judicial foreclosure, there

is no need of deed of sale. Only affidavit of
consolidation is needed under the mortgage
law.

HELD: The rules do not expressly mention up to

what point although the rules of court does not
prescribe the period within which to claim the
exemption, the rule is, nevertheless, well-settled
that the right of exemption must be claimed by
the debtor himself at the time of the levy or
within a reasonable time thereafter. What is
reasonable time?
REASONABLE TIME, for purposes of the law on
exemption, does not mean a time after the
expiration of the one-year period for judgment
debtors to redeem the property sold on
execution, otherwise it would render nugatory
final bills of sale on execution and defeat the very
purpose of execution - to put an end to
litigation.
We now rule that claims for exemption
from execution of properties under Section
13 must be presented before its sale on
execution by the sheriff.

Q: How can the sheriff give it to you? Suppose

the debtor refuse to vacate, is there a need to file
another action of unlawful detainer or forcible
entry?
A: There is no more need of filing another action
to eject the former owner. The procedure is, the
purchaser can ask the court to issue a WRIT OF

Meaning, you raise the issue of exemption at the

time of the levy but not later that the auction
sale. There is a deadline because if you claim
exemption after that, masyadong ng atrasado
too late na ba. Thus, the claim for exemption
must be raised. Thats the ruling in the case of
GOMEZ vs. GEALONE.

Q:
Which of the two documents transfers the
ownership to the purchaser?
A:
Only the DEED OF CONVEYANCE transfers
title to the property.
The certificate of sale one year ago does not
transfer the ownership of the land to the
purchaser. It is only a memorial that you are the
highest bidder, that you paid so much and that
you are the purchaser but there is no transfer of
ownership. Only the final deed of sale in Section
33 conveys title to property. So do not confuse
the sheriffs certificate of sale under Section 25
with the final deed of sale under Section 33.

Sec. 34. Recovery of price if sale not effective;

revival of judgment. If the purchaser of real
property sold on execution, or his successor
in interest, fails to recover the possession
thereof, or is evicted therefrom, in
consequence
of
irregularities
in
the
proceedings
concerning
the
sale,
or
because the judgment has been reversed or
set aside, or because the property sold was
exempt from execution, or because a third
person has vindicated his claim to the
property, he may on motion in the same
action or in a separate action recover from
the judgment obligee the price paid, with
interest, or so much thereof as has not
been delivered to the judgment obligor; or
he may, on motion, have the original
judgment revived in his name for the whole
price with interest, or so much thereof as
has been delivered to the judgment obligor.
The judgment so revived shall have the
same force and effect as an original
judgment would have as of the date of the
revival and no more. (36a)
Q: Suppose A is the highest bidder. There is a
third-party claim which turned out to be valid. So
the property is removed from A. So, paano
naman si A? Nakabayad gud siya diyan. Paano
niya babawiin ang kuwarta niya?
A: As options under Section 34:
1.)
Recover the money from obligee
(A here is not the judgment obligee); or
2.)
Have the judgment revived in
your name and you look for other
properties of the obligor to execute
because:
a.)
He lost possession of the
property;
b.)
He was evicted;
c.)
There was irregularity of the
proceedings;
d.)
The
judgment
has
been
reversed or set aside on appeal;
e.)
The property sold was exempt
from execution; or,
f.)
A third person has validity of his
claim of the property.
Thats one way of property being removed from
the purchaser. Your remedy is to recover the
money from the obligee ASSUMING that the

obligee is different from the purchase. Or have

the judgment revived in your name hahabol ka
na lang sa ibang properties ng debtor. Thats the
procedure alright.
Sec. 35. Right to contribution or reimbursement.
When property liable to an execution
against several persons is sold thereon, and
more than a due proportion of the judgment
is satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale
of the property of one of them, or one of
them pays, without a sale, more than his
proportion, he may compel a contribution
from the others; and when a judgment is
upon an obligation of one of them, as
security for another, and the surety pays
the amount, or any part thereof, either by
sale of his property or before sale, he may
compel repayment from the principal. (37a)
Q: The judgment is against A, B, and C, solidary
debtors. A paid everything. What is the right of
A?
A: A has the right to seek reimbursement from B
and C.
Or if the surety was made to pay the loan, he can
claim reimbursement from the principal debtor.
Thats under the Law on Obligations and
Contractsright to reimbursement.
REMEDIES IN AID OF EXECUTION
Another important portion of the rule to
remember are the so-called provisions of the
rules in aid of execution remedies in aid of
execution because execution is a difficult
process. The purpose of the remedies in aid of
execution is to help the obligee realize the fruits
of the judgment.
It is sometimes very hard to grasp out properties
of the obligor especially if he knows how to hide
them by conveying remedies to assist him in
locating the properties of the defendant and
these remedies in aid of execution are found in
Section 36 to Section 43. And the most famous
are those found in Sections 36 and 37:
Sec. 36. Examination of judgment obligor when
judgment unsatisfied. When the return of a
writ of execution issued against property of
a judgment obligor, or any one of several

obligors in the same judgment, shows that

the judgment remains unsatisfied, in whole
or in part, the judgment obligee, at any
time after such return is made, shall be
entitled to an order from the court which
rendered the said judgment, requiring such
judgment obligor to appear and be
examined concerning his property and
income before such court or before a
commissioner appointed by it, at a specified
time and place; and proceedings may
thereupon be had for the application of the
property and income of the judgment
obligor towards the satisfaction of the
judgment. But no judgment obligor shall be
so required to appear before a court or
commissioner outside the province or city
in which such obligor resides or is found.
(38a)
Sec. 37. Examination of obligor of judgment
obligor. When the return of a writ of
execution against the property of a
judgment obligor shows that the judgment
remains unsatisfied, in whole or in part, and
upon proof to the satisfaction of the court
which issued the writ, that a person,
corporation, or other juridical entity has
property of such judgment obligor or is
indebted to him, the court may, by an order,
require such person, corporation, or other
juridical entity, or any officer or member
thereof, to appear before the court or a
commissioner appointed by it, at a time and
place within the province or city where such
debtor resides or is found, and be examined
concerning the same. The service of the
order shall bind all credits due the
judgment obligor and all money and
property of the judgment obligor in the
possession or in the control of such person,
corporation, or juridical entity from the
time of service; and the court may also
require notice of such proceedings to be
given to any party to the action in such
manner as it may deem proper. (39a)
So under Section 36, you can ask the court to
render judgment to allow you to subpoena the
obligor and take the witness stand subject to
questioning so that you can discover where his
properties are. So in effect, Section 36 is related
to modes of discovery. This is actually a mode of

discovery. This is a type of deposition taking. It is

related to the subject of deposition taking where
the discovery of the witness stand to effect
execution.
EXAMPLE: The sheriff did not find any property of
the obligor. So the obligee can file a motion under
Section 36 for examination of the obligor under
oath hoping that in the course of asking
questions, he might make some admissions. And
the procedure is the same as in deposition but
this is only done right inside the courtroom.
On the other hand under Section 37, you can also
examine people whom you believe owe the
obligor such as his debtors, or those holding his
property, so that you can discover all his
collectibles and ask that the same be garnished.
So this time, it is the obligor of the judgment
obligor who will be examined.
EXAMPLE: Kenneth, Thadd, and Francis owe the
judgment obligor a sum of money. The obligee
can file a motion under Section 37 to subpoena
Kenneth, Thadd and Francis to find out if it is true
that they are indebted to the judgment obligor. In
this case, the obligee can as the court to garnish
the money.
So, those are the objects of Sections 36 and 37.
Of course there are others, just go over them.
Sec. 38. Enforcement of attendance and
conduct of examination. A party or other
person may be compelled, by an order or
subpoena, to attend before the court or
commissioner to testify as provided in the
two preceding sections, and upon failure to
obey such order or subpoena or to be
sworn, or to answer as a witness or to
subscribe his deposition, may be punished
for
contempt
as
in
other
cases.
Examinations
shall
not
be
unduly
prolonged, but the proceedings may be
adjourned from time to time, until they are
completed. If the examination is before a
commissioner, he must take it in writing
and certify it to the court. All examinations
and
answers
before
a
court
or
commissioner must be under oath, and
when a corporation or other juridical entity
answers, it must be on the oath of an
authorized officer or agent thereof. (40a)

Section 38 is the continuation of Section 37. If the

judgment obligor, or Kenneth, Thad and Francis
refuse to comply with the subpoena, they can be
punished for contempt.
Sec. 39. Obligor may pay execution against
obligee. After a writ of execution against
property has been issued, a 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, in the manner prescribed in
section 9 of this Rule, 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
execution. (41a)
Here, there is a change of the party creditor. The
best example is garnishment from a bank. B is
the debtor of the judgment obligor. If B, instead
of paying the judgment obligor, will pay the
judgment creditor, B is no longer indebted to the
judgment obligor.
Sec. 40. Order for application of property and
income to satisfaction of judgment. The court
may order any property of the judgment
obligor, or money due him, not exempt from
execution, in the hands of either himself or
another person, or of a corporation or other
juridical entity, to be applied to the
satisfaction of the judgment, subject to any
prior rights over such property.
If, upon investigation of his current income
and expenses, it appears that the earnings
of the judgment obligor for his personal
services are more than necessary for the
support of his family, the court may order
that he pay the judgment in fixed monthly
installments, and upon his failure to pay
any such installment when due without
good excuse, may punish him for indirect
contempt. (42a)

If upon investigation of his current income

expenses, it appears that the earnings of
judgment obligor for his personal services
more than necessary for the support of
family, the court may order that he pay

and
the
are
his
the

judgment obligee in fixed monthly installments,

and upon his failure to pay any such installment
when due without good excuse, may punish him
for indirect contempt.
Q: Can the salary of an employee be garnished?
A: Yes IF there is excess for support of his
family. (Section 40) Section 40 related to Section
13, paragraph [i] properties exempt from
execution:
(i)
So much of the salaries, wages, or
earnings of the judgment obligor for his
personal services within the four months
preceding the levy as are necessary for the
support of his family;
Normally, you cannot levy on the earnings of a
person which he needs for support of his family.
But actually, it is not the entire earnings because
if youre earning a lot, it is more than sufficient
for your family. So the excess of your income can
be garnished under Section 40.

Sec. 41. Appointment of receiver. The court

may appoint a receiver of the property of
the judgment obligor; and it may also forbid
a transfer or other disposition of, or any
interference with, the property of the
judgment
obligor
not
exempt
from
execution. (43a)
The court may appoint a receiver who is an
officer of the court who will manage the property
of the litigants pending litigation. This remedy is
found under Rule 59 on Receivership. The
purpose of receivership is to preserve the
property by placing it in the hands of the court to
remove it from the control of a party because a
party may dispose of the property.
Sec. 42. Sale of ascertainable interest of
judgment obligor in real estate. If it appears
that the judgment obligor has an interest in
real
estate
in
the
place
in
which
proceedings are had, as mortgagor or
mortgagee or otherwise, and his interest
therein
can
be
ascertained
without
controversy, the receiver may be ordered to
sell and convey such real estate or the
interest of the obligor therein; and such
sale shall be conducted in all respects in

the same manner as is provided for the sale

of real estate upon execution, and the
proceedings thereon shall be approved by
the court before the execution of the deed.
(44a)

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. x x x x xA

representative may be a trustee of an
express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law
or these Rules. x x x x x x

EXAMPLE: The obligor turns out to have an

interest in real property as a mortgagee, or he
has a right to redeem, or right to foreclose, or
right to repurchase. The obligee can levy on
these rights because these rights are property
rights by themselves. This time, it is not the
property which is sold but your interest.

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

Sec. 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied

or another person claims the property. If it
appears that a person or corporation,
alleged to have property of the judgment
obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an
interest in the property adverse to him or
denies the debt, the court may authorize,
by an order made to that effect, the
judgment obligee to institute an action
against such person or corporation for the
recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a
transfer or other disposition of such
interest or debt within one hundred twenty
(120) days from notice of the order, and
may punish disobedience of such order as
for contempt. Such order may be modified
or vacated at any time by the court which
issued it, or by the court in which the action
is brought, upon such terms as may be just.
(45a)
EXAMPLE: The obligee cannot find any property
of the obligor. But there is a rumor that Pong
owes the obligor a sum of money. Upon
examination, Pong denies indebtedness. But the
obligee believes that he has evidence that Pong
owes the obligor money. In this case, the
obligee can ask the court
that he be
allowed to file a collection case against
Pong on behalf of the obligor.
Q: Can the obligee considered as a real party in
interest in this case?
A: YES. The obligee is now considered as a
representative party.
Section 43 is an
example of the phrase, or a party authorized by
law or these Rules under Rule 3, Section 3:

Sec. 44. Entry of satisfaction of judgment by

clerk of court. Satisfaction of a judgment
shall be entered by the clerk of court in the
court docket, and in the execution book,
upon the return of a writ of execution
showing the full satisfaction of the
judgment, or upon the filing of an
admission to the satisfaction of the
judgment executed and acknowledged in
the same manner as a conveyance of real
property by the judgment obligee or by his
counsel unless a revocation of his authority
is filed, or upon the endorsement of such
admission by the judgment obligee or his
counsel on the face of the record of the
judgment. (46a)
Sec. 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without
admission. Whenever a judgment is satisfied
in fact, or otherwise than upon an
execution, on demand of the judgment
obligor, the judgment obligee or his counsel
must execute and acknowledge, or indorse,
an admission of the satisfaction as provided
in the last preceding section, and after
notice and upon motion the court may order
either the judgment obligee or his counsel
to do so, or may order the entry of
satisfaction to be made without such
admission. (47a)
Q: What does satisfaction of judgement mean?
A: SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT is the
compliance with or fulfillment of the
mandate thereof (31 Am. Jur. 354).
Execution is not the same as satisfaction.
Execution is the method of enforcement of
a
judgment.
Satisfaction
refers
to
compliance with or fulfillment of the
mandate of judgment.Normally, execution
precedes satisfaction.
But you can satisfy a

judgment without execution by simply paying

voluntarily. And when the judgment is satisfied,
it has to be recorded the manner of which is
found in Sections 44 and 45 either the sheriff
himself will record fully satisfied,or, the
creditor will file an admission that the
judgment is fully satisfied, or, the debtor on
motion will ask that it be recorded that he
has already paid.
Q: Who may compel satisfaction of judgment?
A: Satisfaction of judgment
may be
compelled by the judgment-creditor by
means of execution, or by the judgmentdebtor by means of voluntary payment.
(Salvante vs. Ubi Cruz, 88 Phil. 236)
Now, here is an interesting question which has
not yet been asked in the Bar. They were
expecting it as early as 2 years ago.
Q: Can a plaintiff appeal from the judgment and
at the same time move for execution of the
same? Can you do both without being selfcontradictory? Can you demand satisfaction of
judgment and at the same time
appeal
said
judgment?
A: PRIOR CASES say, you cannot do it because it
is inconsistent. When you comply with the
satisfaction of judgment, you are already
accepting the correctness of judgment. But when
you are appealing it, you do not accept the same.
That was the old ruling which was MODIFIED in
the case of
VITAL-GOSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
212 SCRA 235 [1992] (en banc)
ISSUE: Whether or not a judgment creditor is
estopped from appealing or seeking modification
of a judgment which has been executed at his
instance.
HELD: It depends upon the nature of the
judgment as being indivisible or not. This is the
doctrine laid down by this Court in a case decided
as early as 1925, Verches v. Rios, where the
judgment is INDIVISIBLE, acceptance of full
satisfaction of the judgment annihilates the
right to further prosecute the appeal; and
that even partial execution by compulsory legal
process at the instance of the prevailing party,
places said party in estoppel to ask that the

judgment be amended. Indivisible means either

you accept it as correct or you appeal. But you
can not have your cake and eat it too.
Where the judgment is DIVISIBLE, estoppel
should not operate against the judgment
creditor who causes implementation of a
part of the decision by writ of execution.
This is the clear import of Verches .and the
precedents therein invoked. The principle is fully
consistent not only with the opinion that
acceptance
of
payment
of
only
the
uncontroverted part of the claim should not
preclude the plaintiff from prosecuting his appeal,
to determine whether he should not have been
allowed more, but also with logic and common
sense. In other words, if a judgment is divisible,
there is no prohibition.
EXAMPLE of DIVISIBLE JUDGMENT: A judgment
adjudicating 2 or more causes of action I am
satisfied with one cause but I am not with the
other. So, my appeal is only on the 2nd cause of
action where the award should be higher. I am
not appealing in the first cause of action and the
defendant did not also appeal. So I can move to
execute that portion of judgment, as far as the
first cause of action is concerned and continue
with my appeal on the second. This is a divisible
judgment. This is allowed.
PROBLEM: Plaintiff sues for P1 million damages.
The court gave an award of P500,000 only (onehalf the damages sued for). Defendant did not
appeal because he is satisfied with the
judgement. Meaning, he accepts the liability of
up to P500,000, Judgment is good. Plaintiff,
however, is not satisfied, It should be P1 million,
so I will appeal. He believes that even if he loses
the appeal, he is insured as to the P500,000.
Q: Can plaintiff move for the satisfaction of
P500,000 and let the other half continue on
appeal?
A: YES, I think so. Anyway, there is no quarrel
with respect to the first half. To my mind, this is a
DIVISIBLE judgment since defendant accepts it
and even if plaintiff loses appeal, the former is
still liable up to P500,000. So the plaintiff might
as well claim it now for it is final insofar as the
defendant is concerned while plaintiffs appeal is
with respect to the balance. This is a possibility
under the ruling in VITAL-GOSON.

Sec. 46. When principal bound by judgment

against surety. When a judgment is rendered
against a party who stands as surety for
another, the latter is also bound from the
time that he has notice of the action or
proceeding, and an opportunity at the
surety's request to join in the defense.
(48a)
When there is a judgment against the surety, the
principal debtor is also bound by the judgment
from the time he has notice of the action or
proceeding and an opportunity at the suretys
request to join in the defense. The surety is only
liable legally but the real party liable is the
debtor.

thing and under the same title and in the

same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same
parties or their successors in interest, that
only is deemed to have been adjudged in a
former judgment or final order which
appears upon its face to have been so
adjudged, or which was actually and
necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto. (49a)

We know what this is all about when the matter

is already decided or finish already, you cannot
re-open that easily. The direct provision of law
which enunciates that principle is Section 47,
which is composed of 3 portions: paragraphs [a],
[b] and [c].

RES ADJUDICATA
And finally, the most important section in Rule 39
is Section 47 effect of judgment or final order.
This is what we call the principle of res
adjudicata.
Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. The
effect of a judgment or final order rendered
by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or
final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order
against a specific thing, or in respect to the
probate of a will, or the administration of
the estate of a deceased person, or in
respect to the personal, political, or legal
condition or status of a particular person or
his relationship to another, the judgment or
final order is conclusive upon the title to
the thing, the will or administration, or the
condition, status or relationship of the
person; however, the probate of a will or
granting of letters of administration shall
only be prima facie evidence of the death of
the testator or intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final
order is, with respect to the matter directly
adjudged or as to any other matter that
could have been raised in relation thereto,
conclusive between the parties and their
successors in interest by title subsequent
to the commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for the same

Now, paragraph [a] is the principle of res

adjudicata as applied in judgment in rem (binding
on the whole world) or at least quasi in rem.
Paragraphs [b] and [c] are the application of the
same doctrine with respect to judgment in
personam (binding only on the parties).
RES ADJUDICATA and RES JUDICATA are the same.
In the Philippines, that is influenced by Roman
Law and Spanish Law (Pua vs. Lapitan, 57 O.G.
4914) But the principle is known worldwide,
although maybe known by another name. In
Anglo-American law, it is known as the doctrine
of Estoppel By Judgment (Fajardo vs. Bayona,
98 Phil. 659). But it is the same. The concept is
similar. That is why in the 1994 case of
SALUD vs. COURT OF APPEALS
236 SCRA 384 [1994]
HELD: The rules of res judicata are of common
law origin and they initially evolved from court
decisions. It is now considered a principle of
universal jurisprudence forming a part of the
legal system of all civilized nations.
Q: What is the FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE upon
which the doctrine of res judicata rests?
A: It rests from the principle that parties ought
not to be permitted to litigate the same issue
more than once; that when a right or fact has
been judicially tried and determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, or where an opportunity
for such trial had been given, the judgment of the

court shall be conclusive upon the parties and

those in privity with them. Otherwise, without
this
doctrine,
litigation
would
become
interminable, rights of parties would be involved
in endless confusion, courts would be stripped of
their most efficient powers, and the most
important function of government, that of
ascertaining and enforcing rights, would go
unfulfilled. (Zambales Academy vs. Villanueva, L19884, May 8, 1969; People vs. Macadaeg, 91
Phil. 410; Oberiano vs. Sobremesana, L-4622,
May 30, 1952; Pealosa vs. Tuazon, 22 Phil. 303)
I think we agree with that. Imagine, if two
persons litigated for years over the ownership of
a parcel of land. Then after years of litigation, all
the way to the SC, defendant won. Final. After
one generation, both plaintiff and defendant are
dead but their children would continue. Here
comes the children of the plaintiff raising the
same issue of ownership. So, there is no end if
there is no res judicata.
REQUISITES OF RES ADJUDICATA
What are the requisites of res adjudicata? How do
we know, since there are 2 cases here? Does it
mean that simply because there is a case
between us, there will be no more case between
us in the future? NO.
Q: So what are the requisites of res adjudicata?
A: There is res judicata if the following
REQUISITES are present:FJMI
1.)
The judgment or order invoked as
res adjudicata must be final;
2.)
The court rendering the same must
have jurisdiction over the subject matter and of
the parties;
3.)
The judgment or order must be
upon the merits; and
4.)
There must be, between the two
cases, identity of parties, identity of subject
matter, and identity of cause of action.
So the elements are similar with litis pendentia.
Actually, they are based on the same rule
splitting of the cause of action. The only
difference is, in litis pendentia, the first action is
still pending. In res adjudicata, the first action
has already been decided and the decision has
already become final.

First Requisite: JUDGMENT OF ORDER

INVOKED MUST BE FINAL
When it says final, the previous judgment has
been final and executory (Hubahib vs. Insular
Drug, 64 Phil. 119) Meaning, it can no longer be
changed. This is because there is such a thing as
final and appealable. A final and
executory
judgment is already beyond the power of the
court to alter while a final and appealable
judgment is still subject to modification by the
appellate court. (Macapinlac vs. CA, 86 Phil. 359)
So where there is a judgment now that you
received, and before it becomes executory, you
filed another case, it is not res judicata. It is litis
pendentia because the first case is still pending.
EXAMPLE: Jessa files a case against Charles.
Charles lost and then appealed. While his appeal
is pending, Jessa filed the same case against
Charles. Charles filed a motion to dismiss the
second case. The ground for the motion to
dismiss should be Litis Pendentia because while
there is already a decision, the same is not yet
final and executory. It is still on appeal. In such
case, it is improper to invoke the principle of res
adjudicata because the first element is missing.
Q: Now, when did the first judgment become
final? Is it before the second case is filed? Or is it
after the second case filed?
A:
Either one. It could have been final before
the filing of the second action or after, provided
when the defendant invoked it, the first judgment
is already final. (Galiancia vs. CA, 173 SCRA 42)
Second Requisite: THE COURT RENDERING
THE SAME MUST HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES
Meaning, the first judgment is valid because if
the court never acquired jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties and rendered
judgment, the judgment is void and cannot be
invoked as res judicata. (Banco Espaol-Filipino
vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921)
Q: May a voidable judgment be invoked as res
adjudicata?
A: YES because such kind of judgment is
binding upon the parties until annulled.
(Reyes vs. Barretto-Datu, 94 Phil. 446)

Now, the classic example of the second element

is the case which I mentioned to you when we
were in Rule 17 the case of
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK (RBP) vs.
MOLINA
166 SCRA 39 [1988]
FACTS: The RPB filed a case against the
defendant for a sum of money. Defendant cannot
be summoned because his whereabouts is now
unknown. Several attempts made by the plaintiff
to look for him failed. After a while the court
dismissed the complaint for RBPs failure to
prosecute. And the order of dismissal was silent.
So, following Section 3 of Rule 17, the dismissal is
with prejudice it shall have the effect of an
adjudication upon the merits, unless the order
provides otherwise.
Then later on, the plaintiff (RPB) discovered the
whereabouts of the defendant. The RPB re-filed
the compliant. Defendant moved to dismiss
because when the first complaint was dismissed
and the order of dismissal was silent then the
dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the
merits.
HELD: Since We are talking of res adjudicata, let
us correlate it with the elements of res adjudicata
under Rule 39.
One of the elements of res adjudicata is: When
the case is terminated, the court has jurisdiction
over the case both as to the person and the
subject matter;
In the case of RPB, the court never acquired
jurisdiction over
the person of the
defendant because he was never served
with summons. Therefore, such dismissal
did not have the effect of res adjudicata.
The second element of res judicata is
missing.
Third Requisite: THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER
MUST BE UPON THE MERITS
What do we mean by this? A judgment on the
merits for the purpose of res judicata is one
finally settling the issues raised in the pleadings
(Manila Electric Co. vs. Artiaga, 50 Phil. 144).
Normally, it is after trial when there is
presentation of evidence.

Therefore, when a complaint is dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue,
even if said dismissal becomes final, the
plaintiff can re-file the case because the
dismissal upon improper venue or lack of
jurisdiction is not upon the merits. It never
dealt with the correctness or validity of the
cause of action. There should be trial,
generally.
So, GENERALLY, a dismissal without a trial is
not an adjudication upon the merits EXCEPT
in Rule 17, Section 3 where the case was
dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to
appear during the presentation of his
evidence in chief, or to prosecute his action
for an unreasonable, period of time, or
failed to comply with the rules or order of
the court. There is no trial there but according
to Rule 17, Section 3, the dismissal shall have the
effect of an adjudication upon the merits. This is
the exception even if there was no trial in the
first case.
Fourth Requisite: THERE MUST BE,
BETWEEN THE TWO CASES, IDENTITY OF
PARTIES, IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER,
AND IDENTITY OF CAUSE OF ACTION
I. IDENTITY OF PARTIES
Q: When there is identity of parties for the
purpose of res judicata?
A: There is identity
of parties for the
purpose of res judicata:
1.)
When the parties in the second
action are the same as the parties in the
first action; or
2.)
When the parties in the second
action are successors-in-interest of the
parties in the first action, such as heirs or
purchasers who acquired title after the
commencement of the first action.
EXAMPLE: The example I gave you, the quarrel
between parents, then the children did the same.
That is the same parties. The children are the
successors-in-interest of the original parties,
although literally they are not the same parties.

One good illustration of res adjudicata on identity

of parties as applied in a labor case was the case
of
DELFIN vs. INCIONG
192 SCRA 151 [1990]
NOTE: The doctrine of res adjudicata applies
not only to the decisions of regular courts
but can be invoked even in administrative
cases. It also applies to decisions of
administrative bodies.
FACTS: In the case of DELFIN, a union filed a
case of unfair labor practice (ULP) against the
employer. Then later on, the case was dismissed
by the NLRC. When the case was dismissed, the
employees filed another case based on the same
ULP. The employer invoked res adjudicata and the
complainants said, No, it is not the same parties.
In the first case, it was the union. Now it is us
(employees).
HELD: NO! When the union filed the first case, it
was filing in behalf of the employees. This is what
you call representative party. In effect, it is the
same party.
While it is true that the complainants in the first
charge was the union, in reality it had no material
interest in the outcome of the case. The real
party who stands to be benefited or defeated by
a case brought in the name of the union are the
union members themselves. Since the judgment
therein had become final and executory, the
subsequent filing of another ULP charge against
the employer for the same violations committed
during its existence, is barred by res judicata.
The bringing of the same action in the name of
the individual members of the union will not take
out the case from the ambit of the principle of res
judicata. So, it is still the same parties.

parcel included in the large tract. (Rubiso vs.

Rivera, 41 Phil. 39)
EXAMPLE: A judgment in an action for accounting
of a certain funds would be a bar for a
subsequent action for the partition of the same
funds. (Chua Tan vs. Del Rosario, 57 Phil. 411)
EXAMPLE: A case for recovery of property was
dismissed. The losing party file a second case for
recovery of the value of the property. In this case,
there is res adjudicata. So, you can not deviate
no? Kahit konting retoke lang, it is the same.

III. IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Q: When is there identity of causes of action for
the purpose of res judicata?
A: There is identity of causes of action for
the purpose of res judicata when the two
actions are based on the same delict or
wrong committed by the defendant, even if
the remedies be different (Qiogue vs.
Bautista, L-13159, Feb. 2, 1962). You cannot
change the remedy in order to escape from the
principle of res adjudicata.
Sometimes, it is one of the hardest same cause
of action because sometimes there are 2
causes of action which are interrelated, even
between the same parties. Now, if there are 2
interrelated causes of action, there is no res
adjudicata. Interrelated only, because the law
says similar causes of action. That is hard to
determine.
That is why the SC had to give some tests to
determine whether the causes of action are the
same or not. Among these tests given by the
Court:

II. IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER

Q: When is there identity of subject matter?
A: There is identity of subject matter if in
the second case, the same thing is involved
or included in the first case. (Agregado vs.
Muoz, 26 Phil. 546)
EXAMPLE: A judgment in an action for the
recovery of a large tract of land shall be a bar for
a subsequent action for the recovery of a smaller

TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT

THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE THE SAME:
1) SAME EVIDENCE Test as laid down in the
case of
AQUILA ESTATE vs. BACOLOD-MURCIA
MILLING CO.
144 SCRA 482

HELD: Res adjudicata can not be applied even

though in the 2 cases there is identity of parties,
subject matter, and relief prayed for, the
evidence adduced to sustain the cause of action
in the first case is not sufficient to sustain the
second case. So, the evidence was sufficient to
prove the first case while the same evidence is
not sufficient to prove the second case.
Therefore, it must be different cause of action for
how come the same evidence will not suffice
anymore. So, it must be a different one.

2. INCONSISTENCY Test given in the case of

VALENCIA vs. RTC
184 SCRA 80
HELD: One test of the identity of cause of action
is whether or not the judgment sought in the
subsequent case will be inconsistent with the
prior judgment. Meaning, you are asking for a
decision which is in conflict with the original
decision.
Q: Suppose there is an inconsistency, is this a
sign of res adjudicata or no res judicata?
A: Well, I think if there is an inconsistency, that is
a sign of res adjudicata because you are trying to
change what has already been rendered. To my
mind, that is how it should be interpreted
because if the judgment I am seeking is
inconsistent with what has been decided, then I
think that is violating the rule of res adjudicata I
am re-opening something which was already
decided.

3.)

And the test in the 1995 case of

GUEVARRA vs. BENITO
247 SCRA 570

HELD: The causes of action can not be the

same if the cause of action in one case only
arose after the judgment in the other. The
principle of res judicata extends only to the facts
and conditions as they existed at the time the
judgment was rendered.
Those are the important principles to remember
(read the cases in short).

RARE INSTANCES WHERE SC REFUSES TO ALLOW

RES JUDICATA DESPITE ITS EXISTENCE
Another point, res adjudicata is a rule of law, rule
of convenience, of practicality and when the
evidence are present, the courts shall not allow
second litigation. We know that but I have to
admit that there are some rare cases where
despite the elements of res adjudicata, the courts
refused to allow it.
This what we call EQUITY CASES. But this is very
rare. When there is a higher principle to be
observed rather than the rule of res adjudicata
there are higher values of society which would be
subverted if we will stick to res adjudicata. A
good example is the case of
SUAREZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS
193 SCRA 183 [1991]
FACTS: This involves a custody case. A certain
Rosemarie Manese file a petition for habeas
corpus for the recovery of her minor child from
her former live-in partner or common-law
husband, Renato Suarez. Later, Manese filed a
motion to dismiss the habeas corpus case for she
intended to pursue another remedy custody of
minor under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court in
Special Proceedings.
Actually, as observed by the SC, her move was
wrong because you can obtain custody of your
child through habeas corpus. She though she had
the wrong remedy, so she changed it. Actually
she was correct. The trouble is, she withdrew it.
In the trial for the dismissal of the habeas corpus,
it was with prejudice so actually, it is on the
merits no?
Thereafter, she filed the custody case against
Suarez. The latter moved to dismiss on the
ground of res adjudicata. All the evidence are
admitted there. There was a decision on the
merits.
HELD: The principle of res judicata should be
disregarded if its application would involve the
sacrifice of justice to technicality. In other words,
this is what we call EQUITY.
The application of the res adjudicata should be
taken on a case to case basis; you cannot say
you apply res adjudicata through and through. It
must be taken under the particular facts

obtained. Meaning, there are certain facts in that

case which will warrant a deviation from the
usual rule, to do otherwise would amount to
denial of justice and/or bar to a vindication of a
legitimate grievance.
It is worth stating here that the controversy in
the instant case is not just an ordinary suit
between parties over a trivial matter but a
litigation initiated by the natural mother over the
welfare and custody of her child, in which the
State has a paramount interest. This is not a
simple collection case.
The fundamental policy of the State as
embodied in the Constitution in promoting and
protecting the welfare of children shall not be
disregarded by the courts by mere technicality in
resolving disputes which involve the family and
the youth.
So there is a collision here between the family
view found in the Constitution and the technical
principle of res adjudicata. If we sustain the
principle of res adjudicata then the mother can
no longer recover her child. But if we disregard
res judicata, the mother will be given a chance to
get back her child, which is higher in value than
res judicata.
This principle observed in SUAREZ was actually
repeated in the 1994 case of
SALUD vs. COURT OF APPEALS
233 SCRA 284 [1994]
HELD: There should not be a mechanical and
uncaring reliance on res judicata where more
important societal values deserve protection. The
doctrine of res adjudicata is a rule of justice
which cannot be rigidly applied when it results to
injustice.
This is another pronouncement which leans on
the equitable side of the situation rather than on
the observance of the technical rules of res
adjudicata. You can disagree with the decision
but the same can not be wrong. This is what you
call infallible. Infallible means no room for error.
That is why Justice Jackson said commenting on
the US SC: We are not final because we are
infallible. But we are infallible because we are
final.

BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT vs.

CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT
If you have read the questionnaire in Remedial
Law last September (1997), one of the questions
asked by the examiner is: Distinguish the concept
of BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT and the concept
of CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT.
The two concepts are found in Section 47. The
concept of bar by a former judgment is in
paragraph [b] and conclusiveness of judgment is
in paragraph [c]. These are two parts of the res
adjudicata rule.
The two concepts were discussed by the SC in
the case of SALUD: The concept of Bar By A
Former Judgment is known in traditional
terminology as merger or bar; and in modern
terminology, it is called CLAIM PRECLUSION;
while
Conclusiveness
Of
Judgment
is
traditionally known as collateral estoppel and
in modern terminology it is called ISSUE
PRECLUSION.
Q: Distinguish BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT and
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.)
As to Effect: If you analyze
paragraph [b], there are two judgments in
BAR BY A FORMER JUDGMENT, the first
judgment constitute an absolute bar to all
matters directly adjudged as well as
matters that might have been adjudged;
whereas
In CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT, the first
judgment is conclusive only on matters
actually litigated and adjudged in the first
action under paragraph [c].
2.)
As to the Requisites: In BAR BY
A FORMER JUDGMENT, there must be
identity of parties, subject matter, and
cause of action; but
In CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT, even if
there is identity of parties or subject
matter, it is not necessary that there is
identity of causes of action.

Of course, for purposes of the bar exams, that

kind of answer will suffice but mas maganda if

there is illustration: Kung bar by prior judgment

the first judgment is res adjudicata to the second
or matters that have been adjudged and matters
that could have been adjudged in relation
thereto.
EXAMPLE of Bar by a Former Judgment:
Compulsory counterclaim. I filed a case
against you for recovery of land. Meron ka pa
lang claim sa akin for reimbursement for
necessary expenses. It must be set-up in the
main action otherwise it is barred forever. But
you did not set it up and then afterwards, you file
a case against me for reimbursement for
necessary expenses, I will move to dismiss. Your
claim is already barred because you should have
raised it as a compulsory counterclaim in the first
action. The barring of the counterclaim is
considered as the application of res adjudicata by
applying the concept of bar by a former
judgment.
EXAMPLE of Conclusiveness of Judgment:
The debtor borrows from the creditor P3 million
payable
in
3
installments
without
any
acceleration clause. When the first installment
fell due the creditor sue the debtor and the
debtor raised the defense of forgery, That the
promissory note is forged and as an alternative
defense assuming that the promissory note is
valid, the first installment was already
extinguished by payment. After trial, the court
decided against the defendant. Tapos na. Now,
the second installment fell due. It is another
cause of action. Now, here comes the plaintiff
filing the case to collect the second installment.
Q: Can the debtor raise again, in the second
case, the defense of FORGERY of the promissory
note?
A: NO. Tapos na yan. We have already
decided that the promissory note was
genuine and that there was no forgery. This
is the same promissory note that we are
talking about. So, in other words, the issue
of forgery is already adjudged in the first
case and therefore res adjudicata in the
second installment.
Q: Can the debtor raise the defense of PAYMENT,
that the second installment is already paid or is it
also barred?

A: YES, because in the first case what was

resolved was whether the first installment is paid.
The judgment is already conclusive on
matters directly adjudged but not to
matters which have not been adjudged. The
issue on whether the second or third
installment have already been paid was
never adjudged in the first case. That is the
application. Take note that there is no
identity of cause of action.
Another example of Conclusiveness of Judgment
was the ruling in the case
CARANDANG vs. VENTURANZA
133 SCRA 344 [1984]
FACTS: This involves a conflict between two
brothers, B1 and B2. There is already bad blood
between them because according to B1, B2
appropriated all the properties of their parents.
So there was this threat from B1 to sue B2 to
recover his share.
So B2 consulted his friend X. X suggested that B2
enters into a simulated sale with X. B2 sold his
property to X. As expected, B1 filed a case
against both of them to annul or rescind the
action. Unfortunately, B1 has never proved that
the sale was simulated. The case was dismissed.
Then later B1 died. After that, B2 said to X,
Isauli mo na sa akin ang mga properties ko. X
said, What are you talking about? I already
bought it from you, akin na ito! B2 filed a case
against X. The defense of X is res adjudicata.
HELD: There is NO res adjudicata. In the
first place, one of the elements of res
adjudicata is identity of parties. Of course,
both of them are also parties of the first
case but they were not adverse to each
other. They were co-defendants in the first
case.
Res adjudicata is only applicable between
adverse parties in the former suit and not
between parties. Co-parties for the judgment
therein ordinarily settle claims as to their relative
rights
and
liabilities
as
co-plaintiffs
or
co-defendants per se.
But the second reason is, the cause of
action is completely different and therefore
the judgment in the first case is conclusive
only insofar as the right of B1 is concerned.
It cannot be conclusive as to the rights of

B2 and X because it is a separate cause of

action.

the case and stare decisis. That was also asked in

the bar.

Another was the 1993 case of

VDA FISH BROKER vs. NLRC
228 SCRA 681 [1993]

We already know RES ADJUDICATA finality of

judgment, or the issues decided in a case, once
the decision has become final and executory and
cannot be litigated again by the same parties in a
subsequent action involving the same subject
matter. (Pealosa vs. Tuazon, supra.)

FACTS: A complaint filed by an employee for

non-payment of service incentive leave, COLA,
13th month pay, holiday pay, is dismissed based
on the finding that no employer-employee
relationship existed between the complainant
and the respondent. The ruling became final.
Subsequently, the same complainants filed
another case against the same respondent for
reinstatement due to illegal dismissal. (How can
you file for reinstatement na wala man kayong
ER-EE relationship in the first case???)
ISSUE: Is the finding of no ER-EE relationship in
the first case res adjudicata to the second case
for illegal termination?
HELD: YES. The issue of employeremployee relationship is crucial in the
determination of the rights of the parties in
both cases. Res adjudicata applies even
when the cause of action is not similar
under the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment. The ruling in the first case that there
is no Employer-Employee relationship between
the parties is conclusive in subsequent cases
although the cause of action is not the same.
If were we to ignore the principle of res judicata,
an absurd situation would arise where the same
administrative agency would have diametrically
opposed conclusions based on apparently similar
circumstances. This is what will happen - for the
second case, there is ER-EE relationship. It is the
same agency which said there is none in the first
case. Conflict!
OTHER PRINCIPLES IN LAW WHICH MAY BE
CONFUSED WITH RES JUDICATA:
A.)
LAW OF THE CASE
B.)
STARE DECISIS
Another question that can be asked here is, how
to explain and distinguish 3 concepts which
appear to be similar. These 3 concepts are all
anchored on the same thing: there is a final
judgement. The concept of res adjudicata, law of

Q: What about the LAW OF THE CASE?

A: LAW OF THE CASE means that legal
conclusions announced on a first appeal, whether
on the general law of the law as applied to the
concrete facts, not only prescribe the duty and
limit the power of the trial court to strict
obedience and conformity thereto, but they
become and remain the law of the case in all
after steps, whether in the lower court of in the
appellate court on a subsequent appeal. (Zarate
vs. Dir. of Lands, 39 Phil. 747)
EXAMPLE of law of the case: There is a case
between us and then an issue is raised before
the CA and there is a ruling, right or wrong. That
ruling will subsequently bind the parties in the
same litigation. Once the case comes back, the
future now of the case will be governed by that
ruling. Right or wrong, that principle will now be
the controlling principle affecting the parties. The
principle will continue until the case is
terminated.
TABACO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
239 SCRA 485 [1994]
ISSUE: Can a case be re-opened if the law of the
case has been changed?
HELD: NO, because when the case was decided,
it was the governing law at the time, even if it
turns out to be wrong.
Under the law of the case concept,
whatever is once irrevocably established as
the controlling legal principle or decision
continues to be the law of the case between
the same parties in the same case, whether
correct or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to
be the facts of the case before the court.
Such stability and conclusiveness given to final
judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction are

said to be grounded on reasons of public policy,

judicial orderliness and economy as well as
protection of the time and interests of the
litigants.

A good EXAMPLE: File ako ng kaso collection of

an unpaid loan based on the provision of the Civil
Code but the debtor said, There is no cause of
action because the provision of the civil code is
unconstitutional. After trial the court said, Yes,
article so-so of the Civil Code is unconstitutional.
The debtor is not obliged to pay. Tapos na. Final
na ang decision because there was no appeal.
What will happen? We are bound. As far as this
case
is
concerned,
the
Civil
Code
is
unconstitutional. That is the law of the case.
KILOSBAYAN vs. MORATO
246 SCRA 540 [1995]
HELD: The doctrine of the law of the case applies
whenever the case before the court came for the
second time after a ruling of the appellate court
(???).

Q: What you mean by STARE DECISIS?

A: Stare Decisis means that the decision of a
court should stand as precedents for future
guidance (Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd Ed., 1228)
Example is the decisions of the SC which stands
as precedents for future cases. The purpose of
this is to attain stability and judicial order. That is
why we are citing precedents.
ROSALES vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
154 SCRA 153 [1987]
HELD: Precedents are helpful in deciding cases
when they are substantially identical with
previous litigations. Argumentum a simili valet in
lege. Earlier decisions are guideposts that can
lead us in the right direction as we tread the
'highways and byways of the law in the search for
truth and justice. These pronouncements
represent the wisdom of the past. They are the
voice of vanished judges talking to the future.
Except where there is a need to reverse them
because of an emergent viewpoint or an altered
situation, they urge us strongly that, indeed, the
trodden path is best.

Trodden Path example is when you go on

hiking like in Mt. Apo. If there is already a path or
trail, you will not have a hard time looking for
your way up to the peak of Mt. Apo. There is
already a way which will guide you to reach your
destination.
But the doctrine of stare decisis admittedly does
not mean that courts should be slave forever to
precedents. A doctrine long standing has also
been reversed. The SC explained also why once
in a while it abandons the doctrine of stare
decisis:
PEOPLE vs. MUOZ
170 SCRA 107 [1989]
HELD: If we have seen fit to take a second look
at the doctrine on which we were all agreed
before, it is not because of a change in the
composition of this body. It is virtually the same
Court that is changing its mind after reflecting on
the question again in the light of new
perspectives. The decisions of this Court are not
petrified rules grown rigid once pronounced but
vital, growing things subject to change as all life
is. While we are told that the trodden path is
best, this should not prevent us from opening a
fresh trial or exploring the other side or testing a
new idea in a spirit of continuing inquiry.

Q: Distinguish Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis.

A: RES ADJUDICATA operates between two
actions involving the same parties and the
same cause(of action); while STARE DECISIS
refers to cases with different parties.
STARE DECISIS refers only to decisions of
the SC (decisions of the CA are not a basis
of stare decisis); while the doctrine of RES
ADJUDICATA refers to all courts: SC, CA, RTC
and MTC.
Q: Distinguish Law Of The Case and Stare Decisis.
A: LAW OF THE CASE refers only to one case
which may or may not be invoked in
subsequent cases, while STARE DECISIS
may refer to various cases which are
usually invoked in subsequent cases.
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final
orders. - The effect of a judgment or final

order of a tribunal or a foreign country,

having jurisdiction to render the judgment
or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order
upon a specific thing, the judgment or final
order is conclusive upon the title to the
thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order
against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in
interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order
may be repelled by evidence of a
JNCFM
1.
want of jurisdiction,
2.
want of notice to the party,
3.
collusion,
4.
fraud, or
5.
clear mistake of law or fact. (50a)
Sec. 48 is actually a law on conflict of laws effect of foreign judgment. If a judgment is
rendered in U.S. and is being invoked in the
Philippines, should we honor it? Yes. So, is it
conclusive? Yes. The law says, in case of
judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment or
final order is conclusive effectively.
PROBLEM: Mortverine and Mistiqla were both in
the U.S. and they quarreled about the ownership
of a ring. They went to an American court. After
trial, the court ruled that Mortverine is the
legitimate owner of the ring. The judgment
became final. Subsequently both of them came
to the Philippines and Mistiqla filed a case against
Mortverine to recover the same ring. Sabi ni
Mortverine, Res adjudicata na ito eh, tapos na
yan. Here is the decision in America. Therefore it
is settled.
Q: Is A correct?
A: YES. Under paragraph [a]. In case of a foreign
judgment upon a SPECIFIC THING, the judgment
is conclusive upon the parties. Hindi puwedeng
buksan. Thats already litigated abroad, merong
nang decision. We will respect it.
Suppose the judgment is against a person. The
law says it is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties.

EXAMPLE: A and B were both Americans. They

were married in the U.S. and obtained a divorce
in the states. They came to the Philippines. The
issue is whether the marriage was validly
terminated. According to one party, Yes, meron
man tayong divorce ba. Is the decree of divorce
abroad involving these American couple allowed
in the Philippines considering we have no divorce
here? That is their law. It is presumptive evidence
of a right of the parties.
EXAMPLE: H and W are Philippine citizens. They
went abroad and somehow able to get a divorce
in an American court which became final. They
came back here. Will the Philippine court honor
the divorce? Here, the judgment may be repelled
by want of jurisdiction of the American court, etc.
The judgment is presumed to be valid unless you
can attack by showing lack of jurisdiction.
What is the principle in private international law?
A judgment of divorce rendered by an American
court between 2 Filipinos is null and void. Why?
The American court never acquired jurisdiction
over the status of the parties (because they are
not U.S. citizens). But judgment in personam is
honored here except when there is want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Q: How do you enforce a foreign judgment?
A: The usual procedure, you file a case against
the same defendant here and the cause of action
is enforcement of a foreign judgment. And then
the Philippine court will render a judgment
enforcing it and then you can execute.
The SC commented on the enforcement of a
foreign judgment in the Philippines in the case of
PHILSEC vs. COURT OF APPEALS
June 19, 1997
HELD: While this court has given the effect of
res judicata to foreign judgments in several
cases, it was after the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity to
repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It
is not necessary for this purpose to initiate a
separate action or proceeding for enforcement of
the foreign judgment. What is essential is that
there is opportunity to challenge the foreign
judgment, in order for the court to properly

determine its efficacy. This is because in this

jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam,
as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign
judgment
merely
constitutes
prima
facie
evidence of the justness of the claim of a party
and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.
With that, we are now through with Rule 39.
(Wheew!)