Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

SPOUSES LARRY and FLORA DAVIS

vs.
SPOUSES FLORENCIO and LUCRESIA DAVIS

March 7, 2018
G.R. No. 233489
Facts
2004 2005
Sps Larry filed a Complaint Sps Larry filed a motion
The RTC ruled in their
for execution. However,
for specific performance favor and this decision
the writ issued was not
and damages alleging that was affirmed by the CA in
implemented because
despite full payment of the toto which became final
Sps Florencio already
purchase price, Sps and executory in Oct 2,
sold the subject property
Florencio failed to execute 2004
to Carmina et. Al and a
a DAS in their favor new TCT were issued in
pursuant to a CTS 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
• Delay was due to Sps Florencio’s fault
Court, a "judgment may be who sold the property to Carmina et.
executed within five (5) years from Al to avoid the outcome of the
the date of its entry or from the decision filed against them.
date it becomes final and • This delay incurred to Sps florencio’s
executory. After the lapse of such benefit (obligors)
time, and before it is barred by the
statute of limitations, a judgment
may be enforced by action." Hence, the period during which the
Sps Larry filed an action for
There had been many instances where annulment of title and Doc against
it allowed execution by motion even Carmina et. Al shall be deemed to
after the lapse of five years, upon have interrupted the running of the
meritorious grounds. These exceptions five-year period for enforcement of
have one common denominator: the a judgment by mere motion.

PM 5:00
delay is caused or occasioned by
actions of the judgment debtor and/or
is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
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.