Heirs of Miranda v.

Miranda
G.R. 179638 – 8 July 2013
J. Del Castillo

Topic: Judgments, Final Orders and Entry thereof (Rule 36) – Execution, Satisfaction of Judgments
Doctrine/s: An action for revival of a judgment cannot modify, alter, or reverse the original
judgment, which is already final and executory. Only the merits of the action for revival may be appealed,
not the merits of the original judgment sought to be revived or enforced.

Petitioners: Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. (Cirila, Cornelio, Numeriano Jr., Erlinda, Lolita, Rufina,
Danilo, Alejandro, Felimon, Teresita, Elizabeth, and Analiza, all surnamed Miranda) (collectively, Heirs)
Respondents: Pablo R. Miranda (Pablo)

Case Summary:
The case involved a Petition for Revival of Judgment of an earlier case (Annulment of Titles and
Specific Performance) filed by petitioners against Pablo. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of
Pablo, which was rendered final and executory since 1999 after petitioners failed to file any appeal.
Come 2005, the writ of execution has yet to be been enforced, which prompted Pablo to file the
Petition for Revival of Judgment. Petitioners opposed this, assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC to take
cognizance of the case. The RTC ruled in favor of Pablo, hence, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal
with the CA. The Supreme Court held the Notice of Appeal was belatedly filed, and the petitioner
heirs’ contention has no merit since they were assailing the 1999 decision (original judgment) sought to
be revived. A party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment may appeal
the decision, but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned. The original
judgment, which is already final and executory, may no longer be reversed, altered, or modified.

Facts:
 1994: Petitioner Heirs filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa a complaint for Annulment of Titles
and Specific Performance against the heirs of Pablo Miranda, which includes Pablo.
 30 Aug 1999: The RTC rendered its decision, upholding the validity of three TCTs and ordering
Pablo to indemnify petitioner heirs the amount equivalent to 12/13 fair market value of the co-
owned residential house (each heir will get 1/13). The trial court also ordered petitioners Lolita,
Alejandro, Teresita, Rufina, and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the
abovementioned residential house and to jointly and severally pay to the spouses Pablo and Aida
Miranda a monthly rental of P2,000.00 from the date of notice of the promulgation of this
judgment up to the time that they have actually vacated the property.
 Petitioners did not file any appeal, hence the decision became final and executory
 11 Dec 2001: RTC issued a Writ of Execution, which was not implemented
 8 July 2005: Pablo filed an ex-parte motion praying that RTC issue a "Break-Open and
Demolition Order" to compel the petitioners to vacate his property  RTC denied this since more
than five years have elapsed from the time the Writ of Execution should have been enforced
 Pablo then filed before the RTC a Petition for Revival of Judgment, which petitioner Heirs
opposed, assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC to take cognizance of the Petition for Revival
 20 June 2006: The RTC granted the decision
 13 July 2006: Petitioner Heirs filed a Notice of Appeal via LBC, which was opposed by Pablo on
the ground that the 30 Aug 1999 decision has long become final and executory
 Petitioners instead moved for the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA, saying
Pablo’s opposition was without merit
 10 Oct 2006: RTC denied the Notice of Appeal, finding the appeal was barred by prescription
  14 June 2007: CA denied the Petition for Mandamus filed by the Heirs on the ground that the
Notice of Appeal was filed out of time  MfR was also denied

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the Notice of Appeal was belatedly filed – YES
 The Notice of Appeal should be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from
 Sec. 3, Rule 13 of ROC: Pleadings may be filed in court either personally or by registered mail.
 Personal: date of filing is the date of receipt
 Registered mail: date of mailing is the date of receipt
 ITC, the counsel for the Heirs filed the Notice thru a private courier, a mode of filing not
provided in the Rules
 Although not prohibited by the Rules, the Court did not consider the filing of petitioners' Notice
of Appeal via LBC timely filed.
 The date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter forwarding agency is not to be considered as
the date of filing thereof in court, instead, the date of actual receipt by the court is deemed the
date of filing of that pleading
 Records show the Notice of Appeal was mailed on the 15th day and was received by the court on
the 16th day  CA correctly ruled the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time
 Petitioners cannot use typhoon "Florita" as an excuse for the belated filing of the Notice since
work in government offices in Metro Manila was not suspended on July 13, the day petitioners'
Notice of Appeal was mailed via LBC
 Even if the Court were to give due course to the appeal in the interest of justice, the appeal would
still be denied for lack of merit

2. W/N the 30 Aug 1999 decision was already final and executory – YES (TOPIC)
 An action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action. It is different and distinct
from the original judgment sought to be revived or enforced
 As such, a party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment may
appeal the decision, but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned. The
original judgment, which is already final and executory, may no longer be reversed, altered,
or modified
 The Heirs assail the Decision dated August 30, 1999 – the original judgment sought to be revived
by Pablo. Considering the said Decision had already attained finality, petitioners may no longer
question its correctness

3. W/N RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for revival of judgment – YES
 An action for revival of judgment may be filed either:
 In the same court where said judgment was rendered
 In the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides
 In any other place designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general
 ITC, Pablo filed the Petition for Revival of Judgment in the same court which rendered the
decision

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated June 14, 2007 and the Resolution
dated September 11, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97350 are hereby AFFIRMED.