SALIGUMBA vs.

PALANOG
G.R. No. 143365 December 4, 2008
CARPIO, J.:

FACTS: Respondent Monica Palanog, with her husband Avelino Palanog, filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages against
Spouses Saligumba in RTC-3 Kalibo. In the complaint, spouses Palanogs alleged that they have been in actual, open, adverse and
continuous possession as owners for more than 50 years of a parcel of land located in Solido, Nabas, Aklan. The
spouses Saligumbas allegedly prevented them from entering and residing on the subject premises and had destroyed the barbed wires
enclosing the land. Spouses Palanogs prayed that they be declared the true and rightful owners of the land in question.

Eliseo Saligumba, Sr. died o February 18, 1984. On June 3, 1985, only spouses Palanogs and counsel appeared, hence spouses
Saligumbas were deemed to have waived the presentation of evidence. After more than 2 years, on August 7, 1987, RTC declared
Palanogs the lawful owners and ordered Saligumbas to vacate the premises. Thereafter, a motion for a writ of execution was filed but
the RTC on 8 May 1997 ruled that the decision could no longer be executed by mere motion (more than five years since date of
decision’s finality).

Thus, on 9 May 1997, Monica filed a complaint in RTC-5 to revive and enforce the August 7, 1987 decision against petitioners. In his
answer, petitioner Generoso alleged that: (1) respondent had no cause of action; (2) Saligumbas died while CC:2570 was pending and
no order of substitution was issued hence, trial was null and void; and (3) RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the heirs of Saligumbas
therefore, judgment was not binding on them.

RTC-5 ruled in favor of respondent and ordered the revival of judgment ruling that the non-substitution of the deceased spouses did not
have any legal significance. The non-substitution was solely due to the negligence of counsel. Hence, the present Petitioners elevated
the matter directly to this Court. Hence, the present petition for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not the execution of judgment cannot be issued against petitioners on the grounds that there was no order for
substitution of the deceased, and jurisdiction over the heirs was not acquired by RTC.

RULING: No. Petition is denied. The Court ruled that the instant case is an action for revival of judgment and the judgment sought to
be revived in this case is the decision in the action for quieting of title with damages in Civil Case No. 2570. This is not one for
annulment of judgment.

An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous judgment that has
become dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to re-
open any issue affecting the merits of the judgment case nor the propriety or correctness of the first judgment. An action for revival of
judgment is a new and independent action, different and distinct from either the recovery of property case or the reconstitution case,
wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced
rendered. Revival of judgment is premised on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent
action, is already final and executory.