SPOUSES LARRY and FLORA DAVIS

vs.
SPOUSES FLORENCIO and LUCRESIA DAVIS

March 7, 2018
G.R. No. 233489

Sps Larry filed a Complaint
for specific performance
and damages alleging that
despite full payment of the
purchase price, Sps
Florencio failed to execute
a DAS in their favor
pursuant to a CTS
Facts
2004 2005
Sps Larry filed a motion
The RTC ruled in their
for execution. However,
favor and this decision
the writ issued was not
was affirmed by the CA in
implemented because
toto which became final
Sps Florencio already
and executory in Oct 2,
sold the subject property
2004
to Carmina et. Al and a
new TCT were issued in
their favor.

2012 2016
file an action for Sps Larry filed an
annulment of title and urgent ex-parte
document against these manifestation and
new registered owners motion for the
and the Court ruled in their implementation of
favor, such decision the 2004 decision.
became final and The motion was
executory on 2012 filed 12 years after it
became final and
executory.
RULING
Section 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."
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: the
PM 5:00
delay is caused or occasioned by
actions of the judgment debtor and/or
is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
• Delay was due to Sps Florencio’s fault
who sold the property to Carmina et.
Al to avoid the outcome of the
decision filed against them.
• This delay incurred to Sps florencio’s
benefit (obligors)
Hence, the period during which the
Sps Larry filed an action for
annulment of title and Doc against
Carmina et. Al shall be deemed to
have interrupted the running of the
five-year period for enforcement of
a judgment by mere motion.
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.