G.R. No. 208614 heirs the following: (1) ₱3,000.00 Moral Damages; (2) ₱2,000.

00 Exemplary
Damages; and (3) ₱800.00 attorney's fees, plus costs.
SIMEON TRINIDAD PIEDAD (deceased) survived and assumed by his heirs,
namely: ELISEO PIEDAD (deceased)*, JOEL PIEDAD, PUBLIO PIEDAD, SO ORDERED.6
JR., GLORIA PIEDAD, LOT PIEDAD, ABEL PIEDAD, ALI PIEDAD, and
LEE PIEDAD, Petitioners Candelaria and Mariano appealed the trial court Decision, but on September 15,
vs. 1998, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 38652 dismissed the appeal and
CANDELARIA LINEHAN BOBILLES and MARIANO BOBILLES, affirmed the trial court ruling.7
Respondents
The Court of Appeals Decision became final and executory on November 1,
DECISION 1998.8 On October 22, 2001, Judge Gaviola issued an order for the issuance of a
writ of demolition.9 The dispositive portion of this Order read:
LEONEN, J.:
WHEREFORE, let a writ of demolition issue against Candelaria Linehan Bobilles
Courts should take to heart the principle of equity if the strict application of the and Mariano Bobilles. The sheriff implementing the writ is ordered to allow the
statute of limitations or laches would result in manifest wrong or injustice. defendants 10 days to remove their improvements in the premises and for them to
vacate. Should defendant still fail to do so within the period aforestated, the sheriff
This resolves the Petition for Review1 filed by Eliseo Piedad, Joel Piedad, Publio may proceed with the demolition of the improvements without any further order
Piedad, Jr., Gloria Piedad, Lot Piedad, Abel Piedad, Ali Piedad, and Lee Piedad from this Court.
(the Heirs of Piedad) assailing the Resolutions dated December 10, 20122 and July
10, 20133 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07176. SO ORDERED.10
The facts as established by the pleadings of the parties are as follows:
On November 26, 2001, Judge Gaviola denied Candelaria's Motion for
Sometime in 1974, Simeon Piedad (Piedad) filed a case for annulment of an Reconsideration.11
absolute deed of sale against Candelaria Linehan Bobilles (Candelaria) and
On December 4, 2001, Judge Gaviola issued a Writ of Demolition against
Mariano Bobilles (Mariano). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 435-T and
Candelaria and Mariano and referred it to Sheriff Antonio A. Bellones (Sheriff
raffled to Branch 9, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, presided over by Judge
Bellones) for its implementation.12
Benigno Gaviola (Judge Gaviola).4
That same day,13 in the same case, Candelaria filed a Petition for the Probate of
On March 19, 1992, the trial court ruled in Piedad's favor and declared the deed of
the Last Will and Testament of Simeon Piedad. Judge Gaviola ordered that the
sale as null and void for being a forgery.5 The fallo of this Decision read:
petition be heard independently and that it be raffled to another branch.14
WHEREFORE, premises considered and by preponderance of evidence, the Court
hereby renders a Decision in favor of herein plaintiff Simeon Piedad and against Candelaria's Petition for the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Simeon
defendants Candelaria Linehan-Bobilles and Mariano Bobilles, by declaring the Piedad was eventually docketed as S.P. Proc. No. 457-T and raffled to Branch 59,
deed of sale in question (Exhibit "A" or "5") to be NULL and VOID for being a Regional Trial Court, Toledo City, presided over by Judge Gaudioso D. Villarin
mere forgery, and ordering herein defendants, their heirs and/or assigns to vacate (Villarin).15
the house and surrender their possession of said house and all other real properties
which are supposed to have been covered by the voided deed of sale (Exhibit "A" On May 16, 2002, Candelaria also filed a verified petition for the issuance of a
or "5") to the administrator of the estate of spouses Nemesio Piedad and Fortunata temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against Sheriff Bellones
Nillas. Furthermore, herein defendants are hereby ordered to pay plaintiff or his
to restrain him from enforcing the writ of demolition. This was docketed as S.P. On July 12, 2010, the Heirs of Piedad filed their Motion Praying that an Order Be
Proc. No. 463-T.16 Issued to Sheriff Antonio Bellones to Resume the Unfinished Writ of Execution
and/or Writ of Demolition before Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Toledo City.25
Judge Cesar 0. Estrera (Judge Estrera), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Toledo City and Presiding Judge of Branch 29, ordered the raffle of the In his Order26 dated May 15, 2012, Presiding Judge Ruben F. Altubar (Judge
petition against Sheriff Bellones. A few days later, after summarily hearing the Altubar) of Branch 29, Regional Trial Court, Toledo City denied the motion.
case, Judge Estrera issued a restraining order against Sheriff Bellones.17
Judge Altubar opined that since more than 12 years had passed since the Court of
Upon Candelaria's motion, Judge Estrera consolidated S.P. Proc. No. 457-T with Appeals September 15, 1998 Decision became final and executory, the execution
S.P. Proc. No. 463-T before Branch 59, Regional Trial Court, Toledo City.18 should have been pursued through a petition for revival judgment, not a mere
motion.27
On May 27, 2002, again upon Candelaria's motion, Judge Villarin of Branch 59
extended the temporary restraining order against Sheriff Bell ones for 17 days.19 On August 16, 2012, Judge Altubar denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Heirs of Piedad.28
The following motions were eventually filed before Judge Villarin, but he never
resolved them: (1) a motion to dismiss, as amended; (2) a motion requesting the The Heirs of Piedad appealed the denial of their motions with a petition under
issuance of an order lifting the injunction order; and (3) a joint motion to resolve Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. On December 10, 2012, the Court of
the motions.20 Appeals29 dismissed the appeal for being the wrong remedy:

On February 28, 2007, the Heirs of Piedad filed an administrative complaint First, assailed in the instant petition are Orders denying petitioners' motion to
against Judges Estrera and Villarin. The administrative complaint charged them enforce a writ of execution and writ of demolition in Civil Case No. 435-T.
with Issuing an Unlawful Order Against a Co-Equal Court and Unreasonable
Delay in Resolving Motions.21 Second, the Orders assailed in this petition were not rendered in the
exercise of the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. In fact, Civil Case No[.]
On December 16, 2009, this Court found both Judges Estrera and Villarin 435- T is an original action for annulment of a Deed of Absolute
administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, and Judge Villarin liable for Sale.
undue delay in rendering an order.22 The fallo of this Court's Decision read:
Under the Rules, appeals to the Court of Appeals in cases decided
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Cesar O. Estrera and Judge Gaudioso D. by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
Villarin of the RTC in Toledo City, Cebu, Branches 29 and 59, respectively, jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW and imposes upon them a
FINE in the amount of twenty[-]one thousand pesos (PhP 21,000) each, with the The appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to file a
stern warning that a repetition of similar or analogous infractions in the future Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of
shall be dealt with more severely. Also, the Court finds Judge Gaudioso D. Villarin discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by
GUILTY of UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING AN ORDER and imposes upon the presiding judge who issued the assailed Orders dated May 15,
him a FINE in the additional amount of eleven thousand pesos (PhP 11,000)[.] 2012 and August 16, 2012.30

SO ORDERED.23 On July 10, 2013, the Court of Appeals31 denied the Heirs of Piedad's Motion for
Reconsideration.
Civil Case No. 435-T before Branch 9, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City was
eventually transferred to Branch 29, Regional Trial Court, Toledo City.24
On September 27, 2013, petitioners Heirs of Piedad filed a Petition for Review On February 12, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Substitution of
on Certiorari32 before this Court, where they adopted the findings of fact in the Heirs,46 alleging that petitioner Eliseo Piedad died on January 8, 2014 and would
administrative case against Judges Estrera and Villarin.33 be substituted by his surviving spouse and their children.47

Petitioners assert that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion In its July 14, 2014 Resolution,48 this Court required petitioners to file a reply to
when it denied their motion for the resumption of the writ of demolition and their the Comment.
motion for reconsideration.34
In their Reply,49 petitioners assert that their Petition was filed under Rule 65
Petitioners chide Judge Altubar for being equally ignorant of the law as Judges because it alleges grave abuse of discretion50 on the part of the Court of Appeals.
Estrera and Villarin. They also point out that Court of Appeals Justice Gabriel T.
Petitioners apologized for the confusion created by their former counsel in filing
Ingles, who penned the dismissal of their appeal, presided over S.P. Proc No. 463-
the appeal before the Court of Appeals. They claimed that their former counsel,
T when he was still the acting Regional Trial Court Judge of Branch 59, Toledo
now deceased, was almost 100 years old when he filed the appeal before the Court
City35 and even issued an Order36 dated July 9, 2008.
of Appeals and Petition before this Court. However, petitioners insist that
Petitioners pray for the resumption of the writ of demolition issued by Branch 9, considering the merit of their case, the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed
Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.37 their appeal on mere technicalities.51

In its October 21, 2013 Resolution,38 this Court granted petitioners' motion for Petitioners ask this Court for liberality for the procedural lapses committed by
extension and directed respondents to comment on the Petition. their former counsel.52

On January 15, 2014, respondents filed their Comment39 to the Petition where The issues submitted for this Court's resolution are:
they claim that it cannot be determined if the Petition falls under Rule 45 or Rule
First, whether or not petitioners have duly established their personality to file the
65.40 Nonetheless, whether viewed as a petition under Rule 65 or an appeal under
petition as heirs of Simeon Piedad; and
Rule 45, respondents assert that the Petition was still devoid of merit.41
Second, whether or not the. motion to revive judgment was timely filed.
Respondents opine that petitioners' motion for the implementation of the writ of
demolition was already barred by prescription since it was filed 12 years after the I
Court of Appeals September 15, 1998 Decision, which upheld the validity of the
Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides who may be a party in
writ of demolition, became final and executory.42
interest in a civil action:
Respondents further claim that the ruling in the administrative case against Judges
Section 2. Parties in interest - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
Estrera and Villarin cannot bind them since they were not parties to the case and
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
the issue resolved was the administrative liability of these judges. They emphasize of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
that this Court did not rule on the validity of Judges Estrera's and Villarin's be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
issuances and orders in S.P. Proc No. 463-T and S.P. Proc. No. 457-T.43
Rule 3, Section 1653 then provides for the process of substitution of parties when
Respondents also question the personality of petitioners to institute the case on
the original party to a pending action dies and death does not extinguish the claim.
Piedad's behalf.44
Petitioners claim to be Piedad's children; thus, they assert that they are the real
Finally, respondents put petitioners to task for their disrespectful tone towards the
parties in interest to the action begun by their father. On the other hand,
judges and justice invol_ved in this case.45
respondents claim that petitioners did not properly substitute Piedad upon his
death; hence, they failed to substantiate their personality to move for the revival of their ability, their duty to their clients does not include disrespecting the law by
judgment.54 scheming to impede the execution of a final and executory judgment. As members
of the Bar, counsels for respondents are enjoined to represent their clients "with
Respondents fail to convince. Petitioners have been repeatedly recognized as
zeal within the bounds of the law."60
Piedad's rightful heirs not only by the Court of Appeals but also by this Court.
Thus, counsels for respondents are given a stern warning to desist from
In Heirs of Simeon Piedad v. Exec. Judge Estrera,55 petitioners filed an
committing similar acts which undermine the law and its processes. Any similar
administrative case in their capacity as Piedad's heirs and this Court acknowledged
infractions in the future from counsels for respondents will be dealt with more
their standing to sue in this capacity. The same is also true in the assailed Court of
severely.
Appeals September 15, 1998 Decision where petitioners filed their appeal as
Piedad's heirs and their personality to represent their father was never questioned II
or assailed.
Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides the two (2) ways of
This Court upheld petitioners' personality to sue in Heirs of Simeon Piedad and executing a final and executory judgment:
sees no reason to deny them the same recognition in the case at bar when the
Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory
current case is merely an offshoot of their father's original complaint for nullity of
judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date
deed of sale. of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of
limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may
Furthermore, this Court takes judicial notice of how respondents, through their
also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and
counsels,56 deliberately and maliciously delayed the execution of a final and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
executory judgment by filing patently dilatory actions. These actions include the
Petition for the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Simeon Piedad,57 filed Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with Articles
in the same case as Piedad's complaint for annulment of absolute deed of sale. The 1144(3) and 1152 of the Civil Code, which provide:
Petition for Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Simeon Piedad was filed in
response to the Writ of Demolition issued on December 4, 2001, pursuant to the Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the
final and executory Court of Appeals September 15, 1998 Decision in CA-G.R. time the right of action accrues:
CV No. 38652.58
....
Respondents, through their counsels, further delayed the execution of the
judgment by filing a petition against Sheriff Bellones of Branch 9, Regional Trial (3) Upon a judgment.
Court, Cebu City to restrain him from enforcing the writ of demolition.59
....
The extent of the insidious machinations employed by respondents and their
counsels were highlighted when they assailed petitioners' motion for execution for
Article 1152. The period for prescription of actions to demand the
purportedly being filed beyond the prescriptive period of 10 years, when they fulfillment of obligation declared by a judgment commences from
themselves were part of the reason for the delay in execution. the time the judgment became final.
Counsels for respondents are "reminded that as officers of the law, they are
Thus, the prevailing party may move for the execution of a final and executory
mandated by Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to "not unduly
judgment as a matter of right within five (5) years from the entry of judgment. If
delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes."
no motion is filed within this period, the judgment is converted to a mere right of
While counsels for respondents are expected to serve their clients to the utmost of
action and can only be enforced by instituting a complaint for the revival of to vacate the premises. This prompted petitioners to apply for a writ of demolition,
judgment in a regular court within 10 years fromfinality of judgment.61 which was again granted but could not be implemented due to respondents'
continued resistance. Finally, petitioners filed an action to revive68 the judgment
In the case at bar, the Court of Appeal's ruling on the nullity of the deed of
of the trial court, which respondents asserted was not timely filed.
absolute sale executed between Piedad and respondents became final and
executory on November 1, 1998. Judge Gaviola, upon motion, then issued an Bausa stated that the law set time limitations in the enforcement of judgments "to
order for the issuance of a writ of demolition on October 22, 2001.62 prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights."69 Bausa then held that considering
petitioners' diligent efforts in the enforcement of what was already rightfully theirs
However, the writ of demolition was never served on respondents due to their
and respondents' machinations that prevented petitioners from possessing their
dilatory tactics and the gross ignorance of the law and undue delay caused by
property, it cannot be said that petitioners slept on their rights:
Judges Estrera and Villarin. The case only began to gain traction on July 12,
2010,63 when petitioners filed their motion for the revival of judgment. But by Despite diligent efforts and the final and executory nature of the Decision,
this time, almost 12 years had passed since the Court of Appeals September 15, petitioners have yet to regain possession of what is legally their own. These
1998 Decision became final and executory. This led Branch 29, Regional Trial circumstances clearly demonstrate that the failure to execute the judgment was due
to respondents' refusal to follow the several writs ordering them to vacate the
Court, Toledo City, where the case was transferred from Branch 9, Regional Trial
premises. It would be unfair for the Court to allow respondents to profit from their
Court, Cebu City, to deny the motion in its Order dated May 15, 2012 for being defiance of valid court orders.70
the wrong remedy. The Regional Trial Court stated:

In the instant case, reckoned from November 1, 1998, the date when the Decision Bausa likewise emphasized that if manifest wrong or injustice would result with
of the Court of Appeals became final and executory, 12 years and 1 day had the strict adherence to the statute of limitations or doctrine of laches, it would be
already elapsed when the instant motion was filed on November 2, 2010. There better for courts to rule under the principle of equity:
may be instances that execution may still pursue despite the lapse of ten -years·
from finality of judgment but it should be a result of a well-justified action for It is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or
revival of judgment, not a mere motion, as can be found in the cited Supreme bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so,
Court Decision.64 manifest wrong or injustice would result. It would be more in keeping with justice
and equity to allow the revival of the judgment rendered by Branch 52 of the
Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon in Civil Case No. 639. To rule otherwise would
The Regional Trial Court likewise referred to Bausa v. Heirs of Dino65 to support
result in an absurd situation where the rightful owner of a property would be
its denial of petitioners' motion, claiming that the case at bar is very ousted by a usurper on mere technicalities. Indeed, it would be an idle ceremony to
similar66 with Bausa. However, a careful reading of Bausa shows that while it insist on the filing of another action that would only unduly prolong respondents'
contains similarities with the case at bar, the factual circumstances and ruling unlawful retention of the premises which they had, through all devious means,
in Baus a tend to support petitioners' motion for revival, not its denial. unjustly withheld from petitioners all these years.71

In Bausa, the Decision declaring petitioners as the rightful owners of the disputed

Just like in Bausa, it also cannot be said that petitioners slept on their rights.
property became final and executory on January 28, 1987. On May 8, 1987,
Petitioners filed a motion for execution well within the five (5)-year period
petitioners filed a motion for execution which was granted by the trial court but
prescribed by Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. However, their efforts
was not served on the respondent.67
were thwarted by respondents' machinations and Judges Estrera's and Villarin's
Petitioners in Bausa subsequently applied for the issuance of an alias writ of illegal acts of issuing restraining orders against a coequal court. Nonetheless,
execution, which was likewise granted. The sheriff then executed a Delivery of petitioners continued to persevere and filed several motions72 before Judge
Possession, but respondents refused to sign the Delivery of Possession and refused Villarin, which the judge proceeded to ignore. This Court recognized the illegality
of the acts committed by Judges Estrera and Villarin when this Court held them
administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay in rendering case or the dictates of equity called for it. This Court held in Lancita v.
an order, imposing upon them a fine and a stem warning that a repetition of a Magbanua:84
similar act will be dealt with more severely.73
In computing the time limited for suing out of an execution, although there is
In dismissing the motion for revival, the Regional Trial Court adopted a strict authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there should not be included the
interpretation of Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court because the proper time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite
time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a
remedy was supposedly an action for revival of judgment, not just a mere
supersedeas, by the death of a party, or otherwise. Any interruption or delay
motion.74 The Court of Appeals, in turn, also dismissed the petition for being the occasioned by the debtor will extend the time within which the writ may be issued
wrong remedy.75 without scire facias.85
The lower courts are mistaken.
It is not disputed that the deed of absolute sale between Piedad and respondents
In David v. Ejercito,76 for reasons of equity, this Court treated the motion for was declared null and void for being a forgery, and that the Court of Appeals
execution, alias writ of execution, and motion for demolition as substantial September 15, 1998 Decision became final and executory as early as November 1,
compliance with the requirement to file an action to revive judgment if no motion 1998. However, due to respondents' schemes and maneuvers, they managed for
for execution is filed within five (5) years from the date of its entry of many years to prevent Piedad and his heirs from enjoying what had already been
judgment.77 David pointed out that petitioner's deliberate efforts at delaying the decreed to be rightfully theirs, leading to an empty victory and petitioners'
execution of a final and executory judgment should not be condoned: continued struggle for their rights.
It would be an idle ceremony to insist on the filing of a separate action that would Considering that the Regional Trial Court May 15, 2012 Order dismissing
only unduly prolong petitioner's unlawful retention of the premises which he has petitioners' motion for revival was utterly devoid of legal or factual basis, it is
through all devious means unjustly withheld from respondents all these years.78 clear that it was attended by grave abuse of discretion for being issued
capriciously and with a gross misapprehension of the facts.86
This Court, in a long line of cases,79 has allowed for the execution of a final and
executory judgment even if prescription has already set in, if the delay was caused To reiterate, jurisprudence is consistent that when the delay in filing a motion or
by the judgment obligor for his or her benefit or advantage. The reason behind this action for execution could not be attributed to the prevailing party, a liberal
exception was explained in Camacho v. Court of Appeals:80 interpretation of the rules of procedure should be resorted to where a literal and
strict adherence will most likely result in miscarriage of justice.87
The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments or
actions is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights.1âwphi1 Far from WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to GRANT the Petition. The assailed
sleeping on their rights, respondents persistently pursued their rights of action. It is Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated December 10, 2012 and July 10, 2013
revolting to the conscience to allow petitioner to further avert the satisfaction of in CA-G.R. SP No. 07176 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Writ of
her obligation because of sheer literal adherence to technicality. After all, the
Demolition issued on December 4, 2001 by Branch 9, Regional Trial Court, Cebu
Rules of Court mandates that a liberal construction of the Rules be adopted in
order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and City is ORDERED SERVED on Candelaria Linehan Bobilles and/or Mariano
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. This rule of Bobilles or any of their heirs, successors, or assigns to resume the execution
construction is especially useful in the present case where adherence to the letter process against them.
of the law would result in absurdity and manifest injustice.81
SO ORDERED.
This Court has also interrupted82 the tolling of the prescriptive period or
deducted83 from the prescriptive period when the peculiar circumstances of the