Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, G.R. No. 168913, March 14, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Shine Dawn Infante
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires enforcement of a judgment within 5 years, does not apply to land registration cases. In land registration cases, the purpose is to establish ownership of land, not enforce a judgment. Once ownership is established, no further action is needed unless the losing party was in possession. The decision in a land registration case becomes final without further action after the appeal period expires. Therefore, the decision in the prior land registration case establishing ownership for the heirs of Lirio remained valid, despite more than 5 years passing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, G.R. No. 168913, March 14, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Shine Dawn Infante
    63 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires enforcement of a judgment within 5 years, does not apply to land registration cases. In land registration cases, the purpose is to establish ownership of land, not enforce a judgment. Once ownership is established, no further action is needed unless the losing party was in possession. The decision in a land registration case becomes final without further action after the appeal period expires. Therefore, the decision in the prior land registration case establishing ownership for the heirs of Lirio remained valid, despite more than 5 years passing.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires enforcement of a judgment within 5 years, does not apply to land registration cases. In land registration cases, the purpose is to establish ownership of land, not enforce a judgment. Once ownership is established, no further action is needed unless the losing party was in possession. The decision in a land registration case becomes final without further action after the appeal period expires. Therefore, the decision in the prior land registration case establishing ownership for the heirs of Lirio remained valid, despite more than 5 years passing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    63 views2 pages

    Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, G.R. No. 168913, March 14, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Shine Dawn Infante
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires enforcement of a judgment within 5 years, does not apply to land registration cases. In land registration cases, the purpose is to establish ownership of land, not enforce a judgment. Once ownership is established, no further action is needed unless the losing party was in possession. The decision in a land registration case becomes final without further action after the appeal period expires. Therefore, the decision in the prior land registration case establishing ownership for the heirs of Lirio remained valid, despite more than 5 years passing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Ting v.

    Heirs of Lirio
    G.R. No. 168913, March 14, 2007, Second Division, (Carpio-Morales, J.)

    DOCTRINE

    Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court refers to civil actions and is not applicable to
    special proceedings, such as a land registration case. In special proceedings the purpose is
    to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a
    person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved
    and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is
    necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and
    the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.

    FACTS

    In a Land Registration Case (LRC), the application for registration of title filed by the
    Spouses Diego Lirio and Flora Atienza was granted. When the decision became final and
    executor on January 29, 1977, an order was issued directing the Land Registration
    Commission to issue the corresponding decree of registration and the certificate of title to
    spouses Lirio.

    Later, Rolando Ting filed with the RTC of Cebu an application for the registration of
    title to the same lot. Respondents filed their Answer arguing that since the decision in the
    LRC had become final and executory, the filing of petitioner’s application is now barred on
    the ground of res judicata.

    The RTC dismissed the petitioner’s application on the ground of res judicata. Hence,
    Ting filed the present petition for review on certiorari. He argued that “although the
    decision in LRC had become final and executor on January 29, 1977, no decree of
    registration has been issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA); it was only on July
    26, 2003 that the "extinct" decision belatedly surfaced as basis of respondents’ motion to
    dismiss the LRC filed by Ting; and as no action for revival of the said decision was filed by
    respondents after the lapse of the ten-year prescriptive period, "the cause of action in the
    dormant judgment passed into extinction.”

    ISSUE

    Whether the decision in the LRC cannot be executed for failure of respondents
    and/or of their predecessors-in-interest to execute the same within the prescriptive
    period?
    RULING

    No. The decision in the LRA can still be executed.

    In Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al., the court enunciates the raison d’etre why Section 6, Rule
    39 does not apply in land registration proceedings. Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
    reads:

    SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. – A final and executory


    judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date 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 also
    be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter
    by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations[,]

    This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special
    proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action
    must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his
    failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes
    the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose is to
    establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a
    person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved
    and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is
    necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and
    the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.

    Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6,


    Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to
    place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land
    registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without
    any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.

    You might also like