Rubio vs.
Alabata, 717 SCRA 554 (2014)
Facts:
Petitioners Rufa A. Rubio, Bartolome Bantoto, Leon Alagadmo, Rodrigo Delicta, and
Adriano Alabata contested a “Declaration of Heirship and Sale” in a suit against
respondent Lourdes Alabata.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dumaguete City (RTC-43) decided Civil Case No.
10153 on October 31, 1995: declared void the said “Declaration of Heirship and Sale,”
ordered Respondent to reconvey property to Petitioners, and awarded moral and
exemplary damages plus costs.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but subsequently withdrew her
appeal. CA’s resolution on withdrawal became final and executory on June 20, 1997,
with the Entry of Judgment issued on August 20, 1997.
Petitioners were unaware of the finality of the judgment as PAO-Dumaguete, handling
the case initially, was not informed. SAC-PAO lawyer, Atty. Ma. Lourdes Naz, also failed
to inform Petitioners or PAO-Dumaguete before her resignation in November 1997.
Petitioners discovered the final judgment in November 2007 upon the efforts of their
nephew. They filed an action for revival of judgment on December 5, 2007, at RTC-42.
RTC-42, responding to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, dismissed the revival action on
February 28, 2008, ruling it was prescribed. Both RTC-42 and CA (in CA-G.R. CV No.
02497) dismissed the Petitioners’ subsequent motions and appeals.
Issues:
Whether or not the action for revival of judgment was correctly dismissed based on the
rule that a final judgment should be enforced within 10 years from the date it became
executory.
Answer: No. The action for revival of judgment was not correctly dismissed based on
prescription rules. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and
Article 1144 (3) and Article 1152 of the Civil Code, a final judgment must be enforced
within ten years from the date it became executory.
In this case, the judgment became final and executory on June 20, 1997, and the Entry
of Judgment was issued on August 20, 1997. The Petitioners discovered the final
judgment in November 2007 and filed an action for revival of judgment on December 5,
2007. Although the action was filed beyond the ten-year period, the Supreme Court
recognized the significant oversight by SAC-PAO and the substantial injustice to
Petitioners. The Court exercised its equity jurisdiction, noting that Respondent would not
be prejudiced as she had withdrawn her appeal, implying acceptance of RTC-43’s
decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that the action for revival of judgment should not be dismissed
based on prescription rules. The Court emphasized that procedural rules can be relaxed
to prevent manifest injustice and uphold substantial justice.
Rulings:
Strict Application of Prescription Rules: The Supreme Court acknowledged that under
Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Article 1144 (3) and Article
1152 of the Civil Code, an action must be revived within ten years of becoming final.
Equity Jurisdiction of the Court:
Due to the significant oversight by SAC-PAO and substantial injustice to Petitioners, the
Court relaxed procedural rules. It was noted that Respondent would not be prejudiced
as she withdrew her appeal, implying acceptance of RTC-43’s decision.
Exercise of Equity: The Court emphasized that rules can be liberally interpreted when
strict enforcement results in injustice. It highlighted that court procedures should not
rigidly bind clients to their counsels’ mistakes when this results in outright deprivation of
property.
Doctrine: Equity Over Rigid Procedural Rules: Courts can relax strict compliance with
procedural rules to prevent manifest injustice and uphold substantial justice.
Answer:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing the revival of the judgment
despite the lapse of the 10-year prescriptive period.
Law: Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that a final
judgment may be enforced by action within ten (10) years from the date it becomes
final. Article 1144 (3) and Article 1152 of the Civil Code: Actions upon a judgment must
be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues.
Application: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the action for revival of judgment
was filed beyond the 10-year prescriptive period. However, the Court exercised its
equity jurisdiction to relax the strict application of procedural rules. The significant
oversight by the petitioners’ counsel (SAC-PAO) and the substantial injustice that would
result from the strict enforcement of the prescriptive period were considered. The Court
noted that the respondent would not be prejudiced as she had withdrawn her appeal,
implying acceptance of the RTC-43’s decision.
Conclusion: In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should
not rigidly bind clients to their counsels’ mistakes when this results in outright
deprivation of property. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing the revival of
the judgment to prevent manifest injustice and uphold substantial justice.
