Mrs. E filed a complaint for sum of money against Mr. F in the amount of ₱1,000,000.00 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After due proceedings, the RTC ruled in favor of Mrs. E, and since no appeal was interposed thereto, the ruling became final and executory as evinced by an Entry of Judgment dated July 2, 2012. However, Mrs. E was unable to immediately move for the execution of said judgment because she had a work engagement overseas.
On June 29, 2017, Mrs. E returned to the country and, on the same day, filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution before the RTC. On July 7, 2017, the RTC granted the motion, and consequently, issued a writ of execution in Mrs. E’s favor.
Was the RTC’s issuance of the writ of execution procedurally infirm? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the RTC's issuance of the writ of execution was procedurally infirm.
Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, execution by motion is valid only if both the motion and the actual issuance of the writ occur within five years from entry of judgment. A writ issued after five years is null and void unless the delay was caused by the judgment debtor.
Here, entry of judgment occurred on July 2, 2012, making the five-year period expire on July 2, 2017. Although Mrs. E filed her motion on June 29, 2017, the RTC issued the writ on July 7, 2017. Since the delay was due to Mrs. E's overseas work and not attributable to Mr. F, the RTC lost jurisdiction to issue the writ on motion.
Therefore, the RTC's issuance of the writ of execution after five years was procedurally infirm.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Within what period from entry of judgment may a final judgment be enforced by mere motion under Rule 39?
Rule 39 provides that a judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry.
What is the proper procedural remedy to enforce a judgment after the five-year period has elapsed but before ten years expire?
After five years from entry, a judgment can only be enforced by filing an independent action for revival of judgment.
Under prevailing jurisprudence, when is the five-year prescriptive period for execution by motion legally suspended?
The five-year period is suspended when the delay is attributable to acts or maneuvers of the judgment debtor.
What is the legal status of a writ of execution issued by a trial court on motion beyond the mandatory five-year period?
A writ of execution issued beyond the five-year period on motion is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Which of the following events restarts the prescriptive period for enforcing a final money judgment?
A new judgment rendered in an action for revival creates a new right of action with its own prescriptive period.
Learn more about these topics
1. Execution by Motion
Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final and executory judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry. Both the filing of the motion for execution and the actual issuance of the writ of execution by the court must take place within this mandatory five-year period. If the court fails to issue the writ within the five-year window, it loses jurisdiction to enforce the judgment through a mere motion, rendering any writ issued thereafter procedurally infirm and null and void.
2. Action for Revival
After the lapse of five years from the entry of judgment and before the expiration of ten years, a judgment can no longer be enforced by motion. Instead, the judgment obligee must institute an independent civil action for revival of judgment under Section 6, Rule 39. The purpose of an action for revival is not to re-examine or re-litigate the merits of the original case, but to give the judgment obligee a new right of action from which a new judgment may issue, restart the execution period, and obtain an enforceable writ.
3. Suspension of Period
The five-year prescriptive period for execution of judgment by motion is mandatory, but jurisprudence recognizes exceptions where the count is suspended. The five-year period is tolled when the delay in execution is caused by or attributable to the acts or maneuvers of the judgment debtor, or due to financial or legal impediments beyond the control of the parties. However, personal circumstances or voluntary overseas employment of the judgment creditor do not suspend the five-year period, as these do not constitute legal or acts-of-debtor impediments under Philippine procedural law.