Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA

Case 16,

G. R. No. 148194
Tan v. People, April 12, 2002

FACTS: Petitioner Willy Tan was found guilty of bigamy and was sentenced to suffer a
prision correctional. Thereafter petitioner applied for probation however order was
withheld due to filing of motion for modification of the penalty by the prosecution.
Prosecution pointed out that penalty for bigamy should be prision mayor, hence was not
eligible for probation. Thus RTC reconsidered its order and rendered an amended
decision. Petitioner filed notice of appeal before the CA but was dismissed. CA
explained that the jurisdiction over the case was vested exclusively in the SC and that
an appeal should have been brought up by way of a petition for review on certiorari and
not by merely filing a notice of appeal before the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether the CA is without jurisdiction to resolve the issue being a pure question
of law?

HELD: No, the CA, under Rule 42 and 44 of Rules of Civil procedure, is authorized to
determine errors of fact, of law, or both. These rules are expressly adopted to apply to
appeals in criminal cases and they do not thereby divest the Supreme Court of
its ultimate jurisdiction over such questions. Further, in a criminal prosecutions, the
accused has the right to appeal in the manner prescribed by law and its suppression
would be a violation of due process, itself a right guaranteed by the Constitution under
sec. 3(a), Rule 122. And that any attempt by the court to thereafter alter, amend or
modify the same, except in respect to correct clerical errors, would be unwarranted.
WHEREFORE, assailed amendatory judgment of the trial court is SET ASIDE and its
decision of 12 December 1996 is REINSTATED.
Rule 39
What events would interrupt the running of the prescriptive period for its execution?

Case 50

G.R. No. 233489, March 7, 2018

Davis v. Davis

FACTS: Petitioners, as vendees and the herein respondents Spouses Florencio and
Lucresia Davis as vendors entered in a Contract to Sell over a parcel of land for a
consideration of ₱500,000, with ₱200,000 down payment and remaining balance is
payable in 12 equal monthly installments. Respondents agreed to execute a deed of
sale upon full payment of the purchase price. However respondents failed and refused
to execute the Deed of absolute sale even after full payment thereof. This prompted
petitioner to file complaint for specific performance and damages. Trial court rendered
decision in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
Accordingly, petitioner moved for the execution of RTC decision but was not executed
because said property was sold to other persons.

Hence petitioner moved for the cancellation of the TCT and for the Register of Deeds to
issue a new certificate of title in their favor but was denied on the groud that the new
registered owners of the subject property were not parties to the case. Thus, petitioners
were compelled to file an action for annulment of title and document against the new
registered owners. RTC rendered decision in favor of the petitioners. Thereafter,
petitioner filed urgent ex-parte manifestation and motion to direct the respondents to
execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor. On the other hand, respondents
opposed the arguing that the said Decision cannot be enforced by a mere motion or by
an action for revival of judgment since 10 years had already lapsed from the time it
became final. However, petitioner contended that the period within which to move for
the execution of the the Decision was deemed suspended with the filing of an action for
annulment of title.

RTC denied the motion of the petitioners explaining that the consequent filing of
annulment of title involving the subject does not toll the running of the period. Hence
there is a need for its revival unless barred by the statutes of limitations. On certiorari, it
was denied. Hence this case.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of another case involving the subject property tolled the
running of the period to file a motion for execution?

HELD: Yes. Sec 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a "judgment may be executed within
five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a
judgment may be enforced by action." Nonetheless, this Court held that there had been
many instances where it allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years,
upon meritorious grounds. These exceptions have one common denominator, and that
is: the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor and/or is
incurred for his benefit or advantage.

Considering that the delay was not due to the fault of the petitioners but of the
respondents, who deliberately sold the subject property to another to avoid the outcome
of the case filed against them, and which delay incurred to their benefit/advantage, it is
only logical, just, and equitable that the period during which an action for annulment of
title and document was being litigated upon shall be deemed to have interrupted or
tolled the running of the five-year period for enforcement of a judgment by mere motion.

Therefore, in computing the time limited for suing out an execution, the time during
which execution is stayed should be excluded, and the time will be extended by any
delay occasioned by the debtor. It bears stressing that the purpose of the law in
prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments or actions is to prevent obligors from
sleeping on their rights. Moreover, the statute of limitations has not been devised
against those who wish to act but cannot do so for causes beyond their control.

WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED.