#18 PNB vs BONDOC  In pursuant to Art.

1143(3), action upon such judgment must be brought

GR # L-20236 within 10 years from 1957 or until 1967.
DATE: July 30, 1965  Therefore, this instant case is well within the prescriptive period.
By: Julpha Policina  Case remanded.
Petitioners: PNB
Respondents: Joaquin Bondoc
Ponente: Bengzon, JP.
SUMMARY:
May 3 civil cases. 1st, Bondoc was ordered to pay PNB ng P10k pero never executed.
2nd, nag file si PNB to revive such judgment and be executed. So judgment lumaki na
amount. Pero hindi pa din naenforce. So 3rd, nag file ulit to revive the judgment sa
2nd. Sabi ni lower court, nag prescribe na daw kasi 1949 tapos 1962 yung 3rd action
to revive. Pero sabi ni SC, yung 2nd judgment is different naman from 1st and since
ang nirerevive is yung from 2nd civil case, it must run from 1957 and not 1949 so
pasok pa din siya sa 10 years.
DOCTRINE:
Right to enforce a judgment prescribes in 10 years counted from the date said
judgment becomes final
FACTS:
 June 29, 1949: PNB obtained a judgment from CFI against Bondoc for
P10,289,60 plus 7% interest per annum. (1st civil case)
 Never executed
 Feb, 20: 1957: upon instance of PNB, said judgment was revived and
condemned Bondoc to pay P16,841.64 plus 7% interest. (2nd civil case)
 Not enforced (AGAIN!!)
 June 7, 1962: PNB instituted again for enforcement of judgment rendered
in 2nd civil case (3rd civil case)
 Lower court dismissed on ground of prescription – right to revive the
judgment has prescribed as more than 10 years elapsed from June 1949 to
June 1962.
 PNB appealed
ISSUE: Whether or not right to revive of PNB has already prescribed
HELD/RATIO: NO
 Article 1144(3) NCC: right to enforce a judgment prescribes in 10 years
counted from the date said judgment becomes final
 As PH derived from Code of Civil Procedure of California: a proceeding by
separate ordinary action to revive a judgment is a new action rather than
a continuation of the old, and results in a new judgment constituting a new
cause of action upon which a new period of limitations begins to run
 In this case, what was being asked to revive was the decision rendered on
Feb 20, 1957.