RULE 39

EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENT
EXECUTION is a process provided by law for the enforcement of a final and
executory judgment. Enforcement is part of the court’s jurisdiction.
It is a remedy afforded for the satisfaction of a judgment. Its object being to obtain
satisfaction of the judgment on which writ is issued (Cagayan de Oro Coliseum v. CA,
G.R. No. 129713, December 15, 1999).

It is the fruit and end of suit (Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445, June 21,
1999).

Against whom issued: Execution can only issue against a party and not against one
who never had his day in court (Green Arces Holdings, Inc. v. Cabral, G.R. No.
175542, June 5, 2013).

Writ of Execution
A judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing him to enforce the judgment of the court
in accordance with Rule 39.

General Rule for the Validity of A Writ of Execution:

1. It must conform strictly to the decision or judgment which gives it life;
2. It must conform strictly to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated,
and may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go
beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed;
3. It must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be executed (De Leon
v. Public Estates Authority G.R. No. 181970, August 3, 2010).

Exceptions:
1. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the
delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the
decision, it appearing that the defeated party’s claim to the possession thereof is
based on his claim of ownership which was rejected (Id).

Reason: It is equally settled that possession is an essential attribute of ownership.

2. Where there is ambiguity in the dispositive portion, the body of the opinion may be
referred to for purposes of construing the judgment because the dispositive part of
a decision must find support from the decision’s ratio decidendi (Mutual Security
Ins. Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-47018, September 11, 1987; The Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884, March 28,
2008); and

3. Where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in
the body of the decision (Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chung, et al. v. Chinese National
Cereals Oil and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp., G.R. No. 131502, June 8,
2000).
When does a judgment become final and executory?
Judgments and orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by
judicial declaration. The trial court need not even pronounce the finality of the order
as the same becomes final by operation of law. Its finality becomes a fact when the
reglementary period for appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such period
(Testate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan v. Biascan, G.R. No. 138731, December
11, 2000; Vlason Enterprises v. CA, G.R. Nos. 121662-664, July 6, 1999; See
discussion under ROC, Rule 36, Sec. 2).

A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source
of any right not the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and
any writ of execution based on it is void (Galicia v. Manliquez, G.R. No. 155785, April
13, 2007).

Note: Only final judgments or orders that have become final and executory can be
the subject of execution, except when a discretionary execution is granted. An
interlocutory order may not be the subject of execution (See Discussion on
Difference between Final Judgments or Orders and interlocutory orders under ROC,
Rule 36).
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ
412 SCRA 1 (2003)

• Facts: Lu was the defendant in a civil case for ejectment raffled to Judge
Siapno. On 7 September 1995, Judge Siapno rendered a decision ordering
Lu to immediately vacate the premises and ordered a writ of execution be
issued. Lu’s counsel received the Decision on 13 September 1995 and filed a
Notice of Appeal on even date. Meanwhile, a writ of execution was issued on
11 September 1995 and was implemented by Sheriff Lopez on the same date
by forcibly ejecting Lu from the premises.

• Held: Clerk of Court Corpuz issued the writ, and Sheriff Lopez implemented
the same, at least two days before Lu’s counsel received the MTC
decision. Clearly, this is an improper procedure because the clerk of court
issued the writ of execution before the losing party received the decision. The
losing party must first receive notice of the judgment before the court or its
personnel can execute the judgment. The reason is that if such judgment is
immediately executed without prior notice to the losing party, then such a
party has no remedy if the evidence or law does not support the judgment.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ
412 SCRA 1 (2003)

• Moreover, even if the MTC decision itself ordered that a writ of execution be
issued, this does not mean that notice of the motion for execution to the
adverse party is unnecessary. The court cannot direct the issuance of a writ
of execution motu proprio. Section 8, Rule 70 explicitly provides that although
execution is immediately executory, judgment may be stayed by perfecting an
appeal, filing a supersedeas bond approved by the court and periodically
paying the rents during the pendency of the appeal. A party is not in a position
to stay execution unless he receives notice of the filing of a motion for
execution. After all, a party has 15 days to perfect his appeal and stay
execution by filing a notice of appeal and supersedeas bond and periodically
depositing the rentals. Unless he receives notice of a motion for execution, he
cannot take these steps to stay execution. While the MTC decision authorized
Corpuz to issue a writ of execution, its issuance prior to receipt by Lu of the
decision was precipitate and against all sense of fair play. Clearly, Corpuz
abused her authority.
Classes of Execution:
A. As to their nature:
1. Compulsory execution – known as Execution as a Matter of Right (ROC,
Rule 36, Sec.1)
2. Discretionary execution – known as Execution Pending Appeal (ROC,
Rule 36, Sec. 2)

Note:The general rule is that only judgment that have become final and executory
may be enforced by execution. However, even if judgments have not yet become
final and executory, they may be executed provided that the prevailing party
complied with the requirements for a discretionary execution or an execution
pending appeal.

B. As to how it is enforced:
1. Execution by motion; or
2. Execution by independent action (ROC Rule 36, Sec. 6).
Section 1. EXECUTION UPON JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS

Requisites of Execution as a Matter of Right

1. Prevailing party must file a motion for execution with the court of origin with
notice to the adverse party;
2. Upon rendition of a judgment or order that completely disposes of the action
or proceeding; and
3. No motion for reconsideration, new trial, or appeal of the judgment or final
order is filed within the reglementary period.

Writ of execution shall only issue upon motion

Execution shall issue on motion. Hence a judge may not order execution of
judgment in the decision itself. In fact, even in judgments which are immediately
executory, there “must be a motion to that effect and a hearing called for the
purpose (Lou v. Siapno, A.M. MTJ-99-1199, July 6, 2000).” Also, under the Supreme
Court Curcular No. 24-94, a motion for issuance of a writ of execution must contain
a notice to the adverse party (Pallado v. RTC of Kalibo Aklan, Bar. I, G.R. No.
129442, March 10, 1999). The motion for execution cannot be issued ex-parte.
Which court has the authority to issue the writ of execution?
It is only the court of origin which can issue the writ of execution. Nothing in this
section authorizes the appellate court which has resolved the appeal to order the
execution of its own judgment. What is authorized is the execution of the
judgment by the court of origin even before remand to the latter by the appellate
court of the records of the case solely on the basis of the certified true copy of the
judgment of the appellate court and of the entry thereof (Jason v Ygaa, A.M. No
RTJ-00-1543, August 4, 2000; ROC. Rule 39, Sec. 1, par. 2 and 3)

General Rule. Execution shall issue as a matter of right on the part of the
prevailing party once a judgment becomes final and executory (Greater
Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee v. Jancom Environment
Corporation; G.R. No. 163663, June 30, 2006).

Exceptions:
Where the judgment turns out to be Incomplete or conditional (Del Rosario v.
Villegas, G.R. No. L-25726, November 22, 1926; Ignacio v. Hilario, G.R. No. L-
175; April 30, 1946; Cu Unjieng v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-32644,
October 4, 1930);
2. Judgment Novated by subsequent agreement of the parties (Dormitorio v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. L-25897, August 21, 1976);
3. Equitable grounds like a change in situation of the parties which makes
execution inequitable (Supervening facts doctrine) (Bachrach Corporation
v. CA, G.R. No. 128349, September 25, 1998)

Note: For the supervening event to apply, the supervening event must
happen after the judgment has become final and executory (Aboitiz Shipping
Employees Association v. Trajano, G.R. No. 112955, September 1, 1997).

4. Execution is Enjoined, e.g. Petition for Relief from Judgment or Annulment of

Judgment with TRO or writ of preliminary injunction;
5. Judgment has become Dormant, except support which can be executed by
motion (Cunanan c CA, G.R. No. L-25511, September 28, 1968);
6. Execution is Unjust or impossible (Bachrach Corporation v. CA, supra);
7. When the judgment has already been executed by the Voluntary compliance
thereof by the parties (Cunanan v. CA, supra);
8. When refusal to execute has become Imperative in the higher interest of
justice (Philippine Veterans Bank v. International Appellate Court. G.R. No,
73162, 23 October 1989);
9. When the execution is sought against Property exempt from execution under
Sec. 13 of Rule 39.
Ministerial Duty of the Court: Finality of judgment has the effect of entitling
the prevailing party to execution as a matter of right. It is ministerial duty of the
court to do and it is compellable by mandamus. Such ministerial duty finds
exception when subsequent events would render execution of judgment unjust
(Mangahas v. Paredes, G.R. No. 157866, February 14, 2007).

Instances where Execution is a Matter of Right.

1. No appeal; judgment becomes final (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 1, par. (1));
2. There is an appeal once the CA judgment becomes final (ROC, Rule 39,
Sec. 1, par. (2));
3. Judgment in an action for injunction, receivership, accounting, support,
judgment declared to be immediately executor (ROC, RULE 39, Sec 4);
4. Judgment in cases governed by summary procedure, including forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, since it is immediately executory (Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 21);
5. Judgment in cases governed by small claims procedure since it is final,
executory, and unappealable (Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases,
as amended, Sec. 24).
Remedy of the prevailing party if motion for execution of judgment is denied:
The remedy of the prevailing party whose motion for execution has been denied is to
file a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 as the issuance of a writ of execution is a
ministerial duty of the court and is compellable by mandamus (Mangahas v.
Paredes, supra).

Remedy of the losing party if motion for execution is granted:

The remedy of the losing party against whom an order of execution is issued is to
either move to quash the writ of execution or to file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 as Rule 41, Sec. 1 [e] expressly provides that “No appeal can be taken from
an order of execution” (1 RIANO, supra at 740).

An order of execution is not appealable otherwise there would be no end to litigation

between the parties (Anama v. CA, G.R. No. 187021, Jan. 25, 2012; ROC, Rule 41,
Sec. 1(f)).
Grounds for a motion to quash a writ of execution:
1. A Change in the situation of the parties renders execution inequitable;
2. Issued against the Wrong party;
3. Issued Without authority;
4. Improvidently issued;
5. Defective in substance;
6. Judgment already Satisfied; and
7. The controversy was never Submitted to the court (Reburuano v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 102965, January 21, 1999).

SECTION 2. DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION

Discretionary Execution Execution As A Matter of Right
May issue before the lapse of period to Period to appeal has already lapsed
appeal and even during appeal. and no appeal is perfected.
Discretionary upon the court, there is Ministerial duty of the court provided
inquiry on whether there is good there are no supervening events.
reason for execution.
Note: Unlike judgments that are final and executory, a judgment subject to
discretionary execution cannot be insisted upon but simply prayed and hoped for
because a discretionary execution is not a matter of right (1 RIANO, supra at 740).

Where to file an application for discretionary execution

1. With the trial court –

a. While it has jurisdiction over the case (before the expiration of the 15 day or
30 day reglementary period to appeal, as the case may be) and while it is in
possession of either the original record of the record on appeal for judgments
(ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 2 in relation to ROC, RULE 41, Sec. 9); or

a. While it has jurisdiction over the case (before the expiration of the 15 day
reglementary period or extension allowed) and before the Court of Appeals
gives due course to a petition for review (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 2 in relation
to ROC, Rule 42, Sec. 8).

Verily, the grant of discretionary execution is pursuant to the trial court’s residual
jurisdiction under ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 9 and Rule 42, Sec. 8.
2. With the appellate court – after the trial court has lost jurisdiction.

Note: What is allowed under the rules is discretionary execution of the judgment or
final order of the trial court. The Court of Appeals has no authority to issue
immediate execution pending appeal of its own decision (Heirs of J.B.L. Reyes v.
CA, G.R. No. 135180-81, August 16, 2000).

Procedure for Discretionary Execution:

1. There must be a motion filed by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse
party.
2. There must be a hearing of the motion for discretionary execution;
3. The motion must be filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case
and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal or with
the appellate court after the trial court has lost jurisdiction over the case;
4. There must be good reasons to justify the discretionary execution; and
5. The good reasons must be stated in a special order after due hearing (Sec. 2,
Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited v. Lee, G.R. No. 159806, January 20,
2006).
The requirement of good reason is important and must not be overlooked because
if the judgment is executed and, on appeal, the same is reversed, although there are
provisions for restitution, oftentimes damages may arise which cannot be fully
compensated. Accordingly, execution should be granted only when these
considerations are clearly outweighed by superior circumstances demanding
urgency, and the above provision requires a statement of those circumstances as a
security for their existence (City of Bacolod v. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-9775, May 29,
1957).

“Good reasons” consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution

lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior,
outweighing the injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a
reversal of the judgment on appeal. Lesser reasons would make of execution
pending appeals, instead of an instrument of solitude and justice, a tool of
oppression and inequity (Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976,
January 20, 2010)
Examples of good reasons that justify discretion execution:
1. When there is danger of the judgment becoming ineffectual (Scottish Union v.
Macadaeg, G.R. Nos. L-5717, August 30, 1952);
2. Insolvency of the debtors (Lao v. Mencias, G.R. No. L-23554, November 25,
1967);
3. To prevent irreparable injury (Fortune Guarantee and Insurance Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110701, March 12, 2002);
4. The subject of the judgment is perishable goods (Intramuros Tennis Club Inc. v.
Philippine Tourism Authority, G.R. No. 135630, September 26, 2000);
5. Old age (De Leon v. Soriano, G.R. No. L-7648, September 17, 1954).

Mere posting of a bond by the successful party is not in itself a good reason for
ordering execution pending appeal, because it is the combination of circumstances
which is the dominating reason that would justify immediate execution, the bond
being only an additional factor (International School, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 131109,
June 29, 1999).

Note: An award for actual and compensatory damages may be ordered executed
pending appeal, but not an award for moral or exemplary damages.
Reason: Moral and exemplary damages are dependent on the outcome of the
appeal. While the amounts of actual damages are fixed and certain (Radio
Communications of the Phils., v. Lantin, G.R. No. L-59311, January 31, 1985).
BALAJONDA v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 166032, 28 February 2005

• Despite the silence of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as to the procedure

of the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, there is no reason to
dispute the COMELEC’s authority to do so, considering that the suppletory
application of the Rules of Court is expressly authorized by Section 1, Rule
41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that absent any
applicable provisions therein the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court
shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.

• The public policy underlying the suppletory application of Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 is
to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected candidate as determined by
either the courts or the COMELEC. Thus, procedural rules in election cases
are liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.

• In this case, there are good reasons that justify the execution of judgment
pending appeal, to wit: (1) the public interest involved or the will of the
electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining period, and (3) the length of
time that the election contest has been pending.
SECTION 3. STAY OF DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION

The party against whom an execution is directed may file a sufficient supersedeas
bond to stay discretionary execution.

Supersedeas Bond
A bond executed by the party against whom the execution was issued in favour of the
prevailing party conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed
to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part by the appellate
court. Discretionary execution shall be stayed upon approval of the supersedeas
bond.
Note: Supersedeas bond guarantees satisfaction of the judgment in case of
affirmance on appeal. It does not answer for damage to property pending the appeal.
General Rule: When a defendant puts up a supersedeas bond, the court shall recall
the execution pending appeal because the discretionary execution is the exception
rather than the rule.
Exception: Notwithstanding the filing of the supersedeas bond by appellant,
execution pending appeal may still be granted by the court if there are special and
compelling reasons justifying the same outweighing the security offered by the
supersedeas bond, for example, in a judgment for support (De Leon v. Soriano,
supra)
SECTION 4. JUDGMENTS NOT STAYED BY APPEAL

General Rule: Judgment is stayed by appeal.

Exceptions: Instances when judgment is immediately executory

1. Injunction
2. Receivership
3. Accounting
4. Support; and
5. Such Other judgments declared to be immediately executory unless
otherwise ordered by the trial court (e.g. A judgment in forcible entry or
unlawful detainer when favorable to the plaintiff (ROC, RULE 70, Sec. 19).

The judgment in action for support is immediately executory or enforceable because

support is immediately needed and its delay may unduly prejudice the one in need
of it.

The rule on immediate execution of judgment in an injunction case does not apply
to a judgment in an action for prohibition (Embroidery & Apparel Control Board v.
Cloribel, G.R. No. L-20024, June 30, 1967).
Principle of Immutability of Final and Executory Judgments

General Rule: Once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and
unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the land (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corp. G.R.
No. 140374, November 27, 2002.)

Exception: The court may modify or alter a judgment even after the same has
become executory whenever unjust and inequitable, as where certain facts and
circumstances justifying or requiring such modification or alteration transpired after
the judgment has become final and executory (David v. CA, G.R. No. 115821,
October 13, 1999) (See Other Exceptions Discussed in ROC, Rule 36)

Reason: The fact that the decision has become final does not preclude a
modification or an alteration thereof because even with the finality or judgment,
when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, it may be modified or altered to
harmonize the same with justice and the facts (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation,
supra).
Griffith vs. Estur
G.R. No. 161777, 7 May 2008

• The decision of Labor Arbiter Layawen, finding Lincoln and

petitioner solidarily liable to respondents, became final and executory on 6
July 2001. Petitioner, however, persists in challenging Labor
Arbiter Layawen’s decision by insisting that the judgment debt should have
been the sole liability of Lincoln. Petitioner maintains that the writ is defective
because it makes him personally liable for the judgment debt even though he
was only a corporate officer acting in good faith and within the bounds of his
authority.

• Labor Arbiter Layawen’s decision is already final and executory and can no
longer be the subject of an appeal. Thus, petitioner is bound by the decision
and can no longer impugn the same. Indeed, well-settled is the rule that a
decision that has attained finality can no longer be modified even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.
SECTION 5. EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT

If reversed totally or partially, or annulled (Rule 47), on appeal or otherwise, the trial
court may, on motion, issue orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity
and justice may warrant under the circumstances.

SECTION 6. EXECUTION BY MOTION OR INDEPENDENT ACTION

Modes of Enforcement
1. By motion within five (5) years from date of its entry.
2. By independent action for revival of judgment after lapse of five (5) years from
entry and before it is barred by statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations provides that actions upon a judgment must be brought
within ten (10) years from entry of such judgment (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1143(3)). Thus,
the independent action for revival of judgment may still be filed within (5) years from
the lapse of the first (5) within which judgment may be enforced by motion.

What is meant by entry of judgment?

The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed the date of its
entry. (See discussion under Rule 36, Sec. 2).
A dormant judgment is one that was not executed within five (5) years. The
enforcement of a dormant judgment is in the nature of an ordinary civil action with the
object of (1) reviving the dormant judgment and (2) executing the judgment reviving it.

An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the
execution of a previous judgment which 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 debtor’s 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 is 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 (Saligumba v.
Palanog, G.R. No. 143365, December 4, 2008).

Which court has jurisdiction over an action for revival of judgment?

The independent action to revive judgment will not necessarily be filed with the same
court that decided the case. It shall be filed in the RTC since it is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. It mus also satisfy requirements of venue in ROC, Rule 4.
Where is the proper venue of an action for revival of judgment?
The proper venue depends on the determination of whether the present action for
revival of judgment is a real action or a personal action. Applying the rules on venue,
if the action for revival of judgment affects title to or possession of real property, or
interest therein, then it is a real action that must be filed with the court of the place
where the real property is located. If such action does not fall under the category of
real actions, it is then a personal action that may be filed with the court of the place
where the plaintiff or defendant resides (Infante v. Aran Builders, Inc. G.R. No.
156596, August 24, 2007).

General Rule: A final and executory judgment must be enforced by motion within five
(5) years from its entry. Otherwise, it becomes a dormant judgment which may only
be enforced through an independent action for revival of judgment.

Exception: A final and executory judgment may still be enforced by motion after the
five (5) year period from entry if:
1. Delay is attributable to the judgment debtor as when he employs legal
maneuvers to block the enforcement of the judgment (Republic v. CA, G.R.
No. 91885, August 7,1996); and
2. Agreement of the parties to suspend the enforcement of the judgment
(Macias v. Lim, G.R. No. 139284, June 4, 2004).
There have been many instances where the Court allowed execution by motion even
after the lapse of five years upon meritorious grounds. These exceptions have one
common denominator, and that is, delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the
judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage (Republic v. CA, G.R.
No. 91885, August 7, 1996).

A revived judgment is a new judgment thus another five or ten (5/10) year period to
execute and revive is given the party.That second revived judgment can again be
enforced under Sec. 6 (Philippine National Bank v. Bondoc, G.R. No. L-20236, July
30, 1965).

ROC, RULE 39, Section 6 does not apply to:

1. Judgments for support which do not become dormant and which can always be
executed by motion because the obligation is a continuing one and the court
never loses jurisdiction to enforce the same (Canonizado v. Benitez, G.R. No.
72746, May 7, 1987);
2. Special proceedings, such as land registration and cadastral cases wherein the
right to ask for a writ of possession does no prescribe (Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, G.R.
No. 168913, March 14, 2007);
3. Contempt orders in unauthorized re-entry on the land by ejected defendant.
Illustration:
In 2000, the judgment in a civil case became final and executory. The plaintiff has until
2005 or 5 years from the date of entry of the first judgment to enforce the same by
motion. If the plaintiff fails to have the judgment enforced by motion within the said
period the judgment becomes dormant and he has until 2010 to revive the judgment
by independent action before it becomes barred by prescription under the CIVIL
CODE, Art. 1144.

If in 2008, the plaintiff was able to revive the dormant judgment via an independent
action, he has until 2013 or 5 years from the date of entry of the second judgment to
enforce it by motion. If he again fails to enforce the judgment by motion within the
latter period, he again has 5 years or until 2018 to have the judgment revived and
enforced by independent action.

2000 2005 2010

2008 2013 2018

By motion By
independent
action

By motion By
independent
action
SECTION 7. EXECUTION IN CASE OF DEATH OF PARTY
A. In case of death of the judgment obligee:
Execution will issue in any case upon the application of his executor, or
successor in interest.

B. In case of death of judgment obligor

1. Before levy:
Execution will issue if the action is for the recovery of real or personal property
or any lien thereon.

Execution will not issue if the action is for the recovery of a sum of money. In this
situation, the judgment obligee should file a claim against the estate of the
judgment obligor under Rule 86.

2. After levy:
Execution will continue even in money judgment. The property may be sold for
the satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale shall
account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his
hands.

Reason: After a valid levy, the property is already separated from the estate of the
deceased and is deemed in custodia legis.
SECTION 8. ISSUANCE FORM AND CONTENTS OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION
The writ of execution shall:
1. Issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted
the motion;
2. State the name of the court, the case number and title the dispositive part of the
subject judgment or order; and
3. Require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ
according to its terms.

SECTION 9. EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS FOR MONEY, HOW ENFORCED

If award is for payment of money:
1. Immediate payment on demand;
2. Satisfaction by levy; or
3. Garnishment of debts and credits.

The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, or certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee or any other form of payment acceptable to the obligee (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 9, par. (b)).

Levy is an act by which an officer sets apart or appropriates a part or the whole
property of the judgment debtor for purposes of the execution sale (Fiestan v. CA
G.R. No. 81552, May 28, 1990).
Levy is a pre-requisite to the auction sale. In order that an execution sale may be
valid, there must be a previous valid levy. A sale not preceded by a valid levy is void
and the purchaser acquires no title (Valenzuela v. De Aguilar, G.R. No. L-18083-84,
May 31, 1963).

The sheriff can validly levy any property of the judgment obligor which may be
disposed for value but not exempt from execution. The judgment obligor has the
option to choose which property to levy upon.

If he does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties,
if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to
answer for the judgment (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 9, par.)

Levy by the sheriff may be done only if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of
the obligation in cash, certified bank check or through other modes acceptable to the
prevailing party. If payment can be done, a levy is unnecessary (Villarin v. Munasque,
G.R. No. 169444, September 17, 2008).

Real or personal property or any interest in either may be levied upon in like manner
and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.
Real Property: By filing with the Register of Deeds a copy of the order together with
the description of the property and a notice that it is attached (ROC, RULE 57, Sec 7
par. (a))

Personal Property: If capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping it in

the custody of the sheriff after issuing the corresponding receipt therefore (ROC,
RULE 57, Sec.7(b)).

Money judgments are enforceable only against property of judgment debtor

For purposes of levy, a property is deemed to belong to the judgment debtor if he
holds a beneficial interest in such property that he can sell or otherwise dispose of for
value. Thus, a mortgaged property may still be levied upon by the sheriff to satisfy the
judgment debtor’s obligations (Golden Sun Finance Corporation v. Albano, A.M.
No.P-11-2888, July 27, 2011).

Garnishment is an act of appropriation by the court when property of debtor is in the

hands of third persons.

It is a species of attachment for reaching any property or credits pertaining or payable

to a judgment debtor.
The sheriff may levy on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits, including
bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property
not capable of manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 9, par. (c)).

The garnishee or the 3rd person who is in possession of the property of the judgment
debtor is deemed a forced intervenor.

Procedure for Garnishment:

1. The sheriff will serve a notice upon the person owing such debts (garnishee);
2. The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five (5) days stating
whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds;
3. The garnished amount shall be delivered directly to the judgment obligee within
ten (10) days from service of notice.

Attachment Garnishment
It refers to corporeal property in the It refers to money, stocks, credits and
possession of the judgment debtor. other incorporeal property which belong
to the judgment debtor but is in the
possession or under the control of a
third person.
DAGOOC v. ERLINA
A.M. No. P-04-1857 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1429-P), 16 March 2005

• Facts: In this case, the court rendered a money judgment by compromise

agreement which became final and executory in favor of the complainant. The
writ of execution was endorsed to respondent deputy sheriff Erlina for
execution. The defendants therein, however, could not pay the money
judgment. Erlina, instead of levying their properties of the defendants, asked
the defendants to execute a promissory note in favor of the complainant.
Afterwards, complainant filed a complaint for misconduct against Erlina for
allowing defendants to satisfy the money judgment through the execution of a
promissory note.

• Held: The law mandates that in the execution of a money judgment, the
judgment debtor shall pay either in cash, certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter.
Nowhere does the law mention promissory notes as a form of payment. The
only exception is when such form of payment is acceptable to the judgment
debtor. But it was obviously not acceptable to complainant, otherwise she
would not have filed this case against respondent sheriff.
DAGOOC v. ERLINA
A.M. No. P-04-1857 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1429-P), 16 March 2005

• If the judgment debtor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified
bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee,
the money judgment shall be satisfied by levying on the properties of the
judgment debtor.
Section 10. Execution Of Judgments For Specific Act

1. Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts, vesting title;

When the party refuses to comply: The court can appoint some other person at the
expense of the disobedient party and the act done shall have the same effect as if the
required party performed it. The court, by an order, may also divest title of any party in
real or personal property situated in the Philippines and vest it in others, which shall
have the same effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law.

2. Sale of real or personal property;

3. Delivery or restitution of real property (e.g. In ejectment cases): The officer

shall demand from the judgment obligor to vacate peaceably within three (3)
working days, and restore possession of the property to the judgment
obligee.

If the party refuses to vacate the property:

The remedy is NOT contempt because the writ of execution did not direct the
judgment debtor to do anything; instead it was directed to the sheriff. The Sheriff must
oust the party and if after dispossession, the judgment debtor should execute acts of
ownership or possession, then and only then may he be punished for contempt
(Pascua v. Heirs of Segundo Simeon, G.R. No. L-47717, May 2, 1988).
A writ of execution directing the sheriff to cause the defendants to vacate is in the
nature of a habere facias possessionem and authorizes the sheriff to break open
the premises where there is no occupant therein (Arcadio v. Ylagan, A.C. No. 2734,
July 30, 1986).

Note: Habere Facias Possessionem – the name of the process commonly resorted
to by the successful party in an action of ejectment, for the purpose of being placed
by the sheriff in the actual possession of the land recovered.

4. Removal of improvements on property subject of execution

There must be a special order (Writ of Demolition) issued:

a. Upon motion of the judgment obligee;
b. After due hearing; and
c. After the judgment obligor has failed to remove the improvements within a
reasonable time fixed by the court.

5. Delivery of personal property.

General Rule: The judgment debtor cannot be cited in contempt of court. Generally,
contempt is not a remedy to enforce a judgment.
Exceptions:
a. Refusal to perform a particular act or Special Judgments under ROC, RULE 39,
Sec. 11 where he may be cited in contempt; and
b. In case of the provisional remedy of support pendente lite under ROC, RULE 61,
the judgment debtor may still be cited for contempt even if the decision is not a
special judgment and requires the latter to pay money.

WRIT OF DEMOLITION AND WRIT OF POSSESSION

Writ of Possession

• In the case of LZK Holdings v. Planters Development Bank (G.R. No. 167998, 27
April 2007), a Writ of Possession is defined as a writ of execution employed to
enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to
enter the land and give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgment.
It may be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage
under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118.

• A writ of possession may be issued to the purchase in a foreclosure sale either

within the one-year redemption period upon the filing of a bond, or after the lapse
of the redemption period, without need of a bond.
• It is the trial court’s ministerial duty to grant a writ of possession. No discretion is
left to the trial court in its issuance.

• A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of ownership of the

property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure
sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed
during the period of one year after the registration of sale. The owner is entitled to
the possession of the property and can demand it at any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer
certificate of title; where, in such case, the bond that was mentioned earlier under
Section 7 is no longer necessary.

• In the case of Joven v. CA (G.R. No. 80739, 20 August 1992), it was discussed
that the RTC may issue as a matter of course in cases of extrajudicial foreclosure
of mortgage a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser during the redemption
period, provided that the proper motion has been filed, a bond is approved, and
no third person is involved.
Writ of Demolition

• A writ of demolition is ancillary to the process of execution and is logically also

issued as a consequence to the writ of execution earlier issued (Vargas v.
Cajucom, G.R. No. 171095, 22 June 2015).

• It can be found on Section 10 (d), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. — When the

property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted
by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or
remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon
motion of the judgment obligee after the hearing and after the former has failed
to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court

• In the case of Guario v. Ragsac (A.M. No. P=-08-2571, 27 August 2009), it was
discussed by the Court Administrator that “if demolition is necessary, there must
be a hearing on the motion filed and with due notices to the parties for the
issuance of a special order of demolition.” It explained that this requirement of a
special order of demolition is “based on rudiments of justice and fair play.” The
immediate demolition therefore of any property and destroyed without an order of
demolition will amount to grave abuse of authority.
SECTION 11. EXECUTION OF SPECIAL JUDGMENTS

Special Judgment is one which can only be complied with by the judgment obligor
because of his personal qualifications or circumstances.

When judgment requires the performance of any act other than judgment for money
and judgments for specific act, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to
the writ.

The writ of execution shall be served upon the party required to obey the same and
such party may be punished for contempt if he disobeys.

Note: A special judgment may be enforced by contempt if the defendant refuses to

comply with the judgment because the writ is already directed to the judgment
obligor.
SECTION 12. EFFECT OF LEVY ON EXECUTION AS TO THIRD PERSONS.
The levy on execution creates a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over the right,
title and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at the time of the levy,
subject to liens and encumbrances then existing.

SECTION 13. PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following property, and no other,
shall be exempt from execution:

1. The judgment obligor’s Family home as provided by law, or the homestead in

which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection therewith;
2. Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his trade, employment,
or livelihood;
3. Three (3) horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts of burden,
such as the judgment obligor may select necessarily used by him in his ordinary
occupation;
4. His necessary Clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry;
5. Household Furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and used for that
purpose by the judgment obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor
may select, of a value not exceeding 100,000 pesos;
6. Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for 4 months;
7. The professional Libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians,
pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other
professionals, not exceeding 300,000 pesos in value;
8. One (1) fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total value of 100,000
pesos owned by a fisherman and by the lawful use of which he earns his
livelihood;
9. So much of the Salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for his
personal services within the 4 months preceding the levy as are necessary for
the support of his family;
10. Lettered gravestones;
11. Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner growing out
of any life insurance;
12. The Right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as such
support, or any pension or gratuity from the Government;
13. Properties specially Exempted by law.

But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall be exempt from
execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its price or upon a judgment of
foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
SECTION 14. RETURN OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION
Upon the issuance of the writ of execution, the same must be enforced within 30 days
and returned to the court after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the
judgment cannot be enforced in full within 30 days, the officer must make a report to
the court every 30 days thereafter on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment
is satisfied in full. The lifetime of such will correspond to the period within which the
judgment may be enforced by motion, that is, within 5 years from entry thereof.

SECTION 15. NOTICE OF SALE OF PROPERTY ON EXECUTION

Notice of requirement
A. If perishable property - By posting written notice of the time and place of the sale
in 3 public places, preferably in conspicuous areas of the municipal or city hall, post
office and public market where the sale is to take place, for such time as may be
reasonable, considering the character and condition of the property;
B. Other personal property - By posting similar notice in three (3) public places
above- mentioned for not less than five (5) days;
C. If real property - By posting for twenty (20) days in three (3) public places
particularly describing the property and stating where the property is to be sold, and
if the assessed value of the property exceeds P50,000, by publishing a copy of the
notice once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in one (1) newspaper selected
by raffle (whether in English, Filipino, or any major regional language published,
edited and circulated or, in the absence thereof, having general circulation in the
province or city).
NOTE: In all cases, a written notice of the sale shall be given to the judgment obligor,
at least three (3) days before the sale, except as provided in par (a) hereof where
notice shall be given at any time before the sale.

SECTION 16. PROCEEDINGS WHERE PROPERTY IS CLAIMED BY THIRD

PERSON

Third party claim Third party complaint

As to involvement of the principal action
Filed by third-party claimant who is a
Filed by third-party plaintiff who is a
stranger to principal action where the
defendant in the principal action
writ was issued.
As the filing
Shall be filed or served to the sheriff Shall be filed with the clerk of court like
enforcing the writ. any other pleadings.
As to effect
The filing of the third party claim will The third-party defendant is made a
discharge the sheriff from the duty of party to the principal action.
keeping the property to serve the
purpose of the writ.
Remedies of a THIRD-PARTY CLAIMANT
1. Summary hearing before the court which authorized the execution;
2. Terceria or third party claim filed with the sheriff;
3. Action for damages on the bond posted by judgment creditors; or
4. Independent reivindicatory action.

The remedies are cumulative and may be resorted to by the third party claimant
independently of or separately from the others (Spouses Sy v. Discaya, G.R. No.
86301, January 23, 1990).

If the winning party files a bond, it is only then that the sheriff can take the property in
his possession. If there is no bond, the sale cannot proceed.

Note: The officer shall not be liable for damages to any third-party claimant if such
bond is filed for the taking or keeping of the property.

However, the judgment obligee can claim damages against a third-party claimant who
filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, and such damages may be recovered by
the judgment obligee in the same or separate action.
Note: The timing of the filing of the third party claim is important because the timing
determines the remedies that a third party is allowed to file. A third party claimant
under Section 16 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may vindicate his
claim to the property in a separate action, because intervention is no longer allowed
as judgment has already been rendered. A third party claimant under Section 14 of
Rule 57 of the same Rules, on the other hand, may vindicate his claim to the property
by intervention because he has a legal interest in the matter in litigation (Fort
Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Yllas Lending, Corp. G.R. No. 158997, October 6,
2008).

Differnce between Terceria in Execution, Preliminary Attachment and Replevin

Rule 39, Section 16 Rule 57, Section 14 Rule 60, Section 7
When to file
At any time the sheriff is At any time the sheriff is Within 5 days after the
still in possession of the still in possession of the taking of the property by
property levied on property levied on the sheriff because the
execution. attachment. sheriff is bound to deliver
the property after such
period to the applicant.
 Where Third Party Claimant may vindicate his claim to the property
In a separate action
because he may no longer In a separate action or in In a separate action or in
file a pleading-in- the same proceeding by the same proceeding by
intervention since filing a complaint-in- filing a complaint-in-
judgment has already been intervention. intervention.
rendered in the main case.

SECTION 17. PENALTY FOR SELLING WITHOUT NOTICE, OR REMOVING OR

DEFACING NOTICE

The following are liable for actual and punitive damages:

1. An officer selling without the notice prescribed by Sec. 15; and
2. A person willfully removing or defacing the notice posted, if done before the sale,
or before the satisfaction of judgment if satisfied before the sale.

Punitive damages: In the amount of Php5,000 pesos.

Actual and punitive damages may be recovered by motion in the same action.
SECTION 18. NO SALE IF JUDGMENT AND COSTS PAID
At any time before the sale of property on execution, the judgment obligor may
prevent the sale by paying the amount required by the execution and the costs that
have been incurred therein.

SECTION 19. HOW PROPERTY SOLD ON EXECUTION; WHO MAY DIRECT

MANNER AND ORDER OF SALE

All sales of property under execution must be made:

1. At public auction;
2. To the highest bidder;
3. To start at the exact time fixed in the notice.

After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution, no more shall be
sold and any excess shall be promptly delivered to the judgment obligor or his
authorized representative, unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the
court.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ORDINARY SALE AND SALE IN JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE

Sale in Judicial Foreclosure of

Ordinary Sale on Execution (Rule 39)
Mortgage (Rule 68)
As to confirmation of certificate of sale
Must be confirmed by the court in order
Need not be confirmed by the court. It is to divest the rights in the property of the
merely provisional. parties and to vest the rights in the
purchaser.
As to existence of right of redemption
There is no right of redemption only
Right of redemption exist when the
equity of redemption, except where the
subject matter of execution is real
mortgagee is a bank or a banking
property.
institution.
As to how title is acquired
Title acquired after the expiration of the Title acquired upon entry f the
redemption period when final deed of confirmation and registration of the
conveyance is executed. foreclosure sale.
SECTION 20. REFUSAL OF PURCHASER TO PAY
The officer may again sell the property to the highest bidder and shall not be
responsible for any loss occasioned thereby.

But the court may order the refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount of
such loss, with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he disobeys the order. The
officer may thereafter reject any subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to
pay.

SECTION 21. JUDGMENT OBLIGEE AS PURCHASER

When the purchaser is the judgment obligee, and no third party claim has been filed,
he need not pay the amount of the bid if it does NOT exceed the amount of his
judgment. If it does, he shall pay only the excess.

SECTION 22. ADJOURNMENT OF SALE

1. If with written consent of the judgment obligor and obligee or their duly
authorized representative: To any date and time agreed upon.
2. If without such agreement: From day to day if it becomes necessary to do so for
lack of time.
SECTION 23. CONVEYANCE TO PURCHASER OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
CAPABLE OF MANUAL DELIVERY

SECTION 24. CONVEYANCE TO PURCHASER OF PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT

CAPABLE OF MANUAL DELIVERY

How Title is Conveyed to Purchaser of Personal Property

Personal property capable of manual Personal Property not capable of
delivery manual delivery
As to requirement of certificate of sale
When purcahser pays the purchase
When the purchaser pays the purchase
price, the personal property, capable of
price, the officer making the sale must
manual delivery, must be delivered to
execute and deliver to him a certificate of
him and if desired execute and deliver to
sale.
him a certificate of sale.
As to act which conveys the judgment obligor’s rights to the purchaser
The sale or delivery of the personal The execution and delivery of the
property conveys to the purchaser all the certificate of sale conveys to the
rights which the judgment obligor had in purchaser all the rights which the
such property as of the date of levy on judgment obligor had in such property as
execution or preliminary attachment. of the date of levy on execution or
preliminary attachment.
Note: This is the reason why there is no right of redemption of personal property is
because tilte passes to the purchaser upon delivery or execution of certificate of sale.

SECTION 25. CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY; CERTIFICATE THEREOF

GIVEN TO PURCHASER AND FILED WITH REGISTRY OF DEEDS
The officer must give to the purchaser a Certificate of Sale

Contents of the certificate of sale: (DEW-R)

1. A particular Description of the real property sold;
2. The Price paid for Each distinct lot or parcel;
3. The Whole price paid by him;
4. A statement that the Right of redemption expires one (1) year from the date of the
registration of the certificate of sale.

Note: Confirmation of the sale is not needed unlike in judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
The certificate of sale is merely provisional (Raymundo v. Sunico, G.R. No. 8241,
September 27, 1913).

May the validity of an auction sale be attacked?

General Rule: No, because of the presumption of regular performence of duty by the
sheriff.
Exceptions:
1. When from the nature of the irregularity or from intrinsic facts, injury resulted
(Somera Vda. de Navarro v. Navarro, C.A. No. 501, February 11, 1946);
2. When the price obtained is shockingly inadequate and it is shown that a better
price can be obtained at a resale (Barrozo v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. L-1282, April 25,
1949).

Exception to the Exception: The rule that you can question the validity of the
auction sale if the price obtained is shockingly inadequate does not apply when the
property sold is real property (Ramos v. Pablo, G.R. No. L-53692, November 26,
1986).

Reason: The lower the purchase price, the easier it would be for the judgment
obligor to redeem his property.

SECTION 26. CERTIFICATE OF SALE WHERE PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THIRD

PERSON
The certificate of sale to be issued shall make express mention of the existence of
such third-party claim.
SECTION 27. WHO MAY REDEEM REAL PROPERTY SO SOLD.

SECTION 28. TIME AND MANNER OF, AND AMOUNTS PAYABLE ON,
SUCCESSIVE REDEMPTIONS; NOTICE TO BE GIVEN AND FILED.

Redemption: This right of redemption is transferable and may be voluntarily sold, but
it cannot be levied upon by the judgment creditor so as to deprive the judgment
debtor of any further rights to the property.

Right of Redemption:
1. Personal Property – none; Sale is absolute.
2. Real Property – There is a right of redemption.

Who may redeem (Sec. 27)

1. Judgment obligor, or his successor in interest, in the whole or any part of

the property; or

Successor in interest – includes a person to whom he has transferred his right of

redemption, or one to whom he has conveyed his interests in the property for
purposes of redemption, or one who succeeds to his properly by operation of law, or
a person with a joint interest in the property, or his spouse or heirs (Magno v. Viola,
G.R. No. 37521, December 22, 1934).
2. Redemptioner who is a creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment,
judgment or mortgage on the property sold, subsequent to the lien under
which the property was sold.

Note: If his lien is prior to the judgment, he is not a redemptioner because his interests
in his lien are fully protected (relate to Section 12).

WHEN can redemption be made: (Sec. 28)

1. By the judgment obligor - Within one (1) year from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale.
2. By the first redemptioner - Within one (1) year from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale; or
3. By all subsequent redemptioners - Within sixty (60) days from the last
redemption, provided that the judgment debtor has not exercised his right of
redemption.

Note: Written notice of any redemption must be given to the officer who made the sale
and a duplicate filed with the registry of deeds of the place, and if any assessments or
taxes are paid by the redemptioner or if he has or acquires any lien other than that upon
which the redemption was made, notice thereof must in like manner be given to the
officer and filed with the registry of deeds; if such notice be not filed, the property may
be redeemed without paying such assessments, taxes, or liens.
General Rule: In all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one
(1) year from the date of the registration of the sale to redeem the property. If the
judgment obligor redeems, no further redemption is allowed and he is restored to his
estate (Sec. 29).

Exception: Sec. 47 of the General Banking Act provides that in case of extrajudicial
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage notwithstanding Act 3135, judicial persons shall
have the right to redeem the property until, but not after, the registration of the
certificate of foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds which in no case
shall be more than three (3) months after the foreclosure, whichever is earlier.

The period of redemption is not suspended by an action to annul the

foreclosure sale.

Note: The periods for redemption are not extendible or interrupted. The parties may,
however, agree on a longer period, in such case, it would be a conventional
redemption (Lazo v. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-27365,
January 30,1970).

The parties cannot enter into an agreement to reduce the period of redemption. Any
agreement to that effect is a void agreement.
REDEMPTION PRICE (Sec. 28)

A. BY THE JUDGMENT OBLIGOR OR FIRST REDEMPTIONER:

1. Purchase price;
2. 1% interest thereon, up to the time of redemption;
3. Any amount of assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid
thereon after purchase and interest on such last named amount at the same rate;
4. If the purchaser be also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner,
other than the judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of
such other lien, with interest.
B. BY SUBSEQUENT REDEMPTIONERS:
1. Amount paid on the last redemption;
2. 2% interest thereon;
3. Any amount of assessments or taxes which the last redemptioner may have paid
thereon after redemption by him with interest on such last-named amount;
4. Amount of any liens held by said last redemptioner prior to his own, with interest.

The redemption price for subsequent redemption shall be the same (redemption
price becomes higher and higher).
May redemption be paid in any form other than cash? Yes. The rule is construed
liberally in allowing redemption (aid rather than defeat the right) and it has been
allowed in the case of a cashier’s check, certified bank checks and even checks.

The offer to redeem must be accompanied with a bona fide tender or delivery of the
redemption price.

However, a formal offer to redeem with a tender is not necessary where the right to
redeem is exercised through the filing of a complaint to redeem in the courts, within
the period to redeem.

Principle of Successive Redemption

The first redemptioner may redeem the property within one (1) year from the date of
registration of the certificate of sale which may again be redeemed within sixty (60)
days after the last redemption upon payment of the sum paid on the last redemption.
This is predicated on the assumption that there are several redemptioners.

Illustration: Supposing there are three (3) redemptioners and the first redemptioner
redeemed the property at the last day of the 1-year period. The second redemptioner
may still redeem the property within sixty (60) days from the last redemption which
may still be redeemed within the same period by the third redemptioner. The period of
redemption is effectively extended by one hundred twenty (120) days. In this case,
there can be a valid legal redemption beyond the one (1)-year redemption period.
SECTION 29. EFFECT OF REDEMPTION BY JUDGMENT OBLIGOR, AND A
CERTIFICATE TO BE DELIVERED AND RECORDED THEREUPON; TO WHOM
PAYMENTS ON REDEMPTION MADE
The person to whom the redemption payment is made must execute and deliver to
him a notarized Certificate of Redemption.

Such certificate must be filed and recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in
which the property is situated and the registrar of deeds must note the record thereof
on the margin of the record of the certificate of sale.

The payments mentioned in this and the last preceding sections may be made to the:
1. purchaser;
2. redemptioner; or
3. for him to the officer who made the sale.

SECTION 30. PROOF REQUIRED OF REDEMPTION

Redemptioner must produce to the officer, or person from whom he seeks to redeem,
and serve with his notice to the officer:

1. A copy of the judgment or final order under which he claims the right to redeem
certified by the clerk of court wherein the judgment or final order is entered; or
2. If he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien, a memorandum of the record
thereof, certified by the Register of Deeds; or
3. An original or certified copy of any assignment necessary to establish his claim;
and
4. An affidavit executed by him or his agent showing the amount then actually due
on the lien.
Note: When the original owner wants to redeem, there is no need for him to prove his
right as a judgment debtor.

SECTION 31. MANNER OF USING PREMISES PENDING REDEMPTION; WASTE

RESTRAINED
Until the expiration of the time allowed for redemption, the court may restrain the
commission of waste on the property by injunction under Rule 58, on the application
of the judgment obligee or highest bidder.

SECTION 32. RENTS, EARNINGS AND INCOME OF PROPERTY PENDING

REDEMPTION
Rights of the Judgment Debtor until the expiration of the period of redemption
1. Use the property in the same manner it was previously used (ROC, RULE 39, Sec.
31);
2. Use it in the ordinary course of husbandry (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 31);
3. Make Necessary repairs to buildings thereon while he occupies the property
(ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 31);
4. Collect rents, earnings and income derived from the property until the expiration of
period of redemption (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 32);
5. Remain in possession of the property since it is only after the expiration of the
period of redemption that the highest bidder or last redemptioner becomes entitled
to conveyance and possession of the property (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 33).

SECTION 33. DEED AND POSSESSION TO BE GIVEN AT EXPIRATION OF

REDEMPTION PERIOD; BY WHOM EXECUTED OR GIVEN
After the expiration of the period of redemption, the purchaser or last redemptioner is
entitled to a deed of possession of the property.

He is thereby substituted to and acquires all the rights, title, interest and claim of the
judgment obligor to the property at the time of levy. The purchaser’s right retroact to
the date of levy.

Two (2) Documents which the Sheriff Executes in case of Real Property:
1. Certificate of Sale – After the auction sale, he will execute in favor of the
purchaser the certificate of sale under Section 25. From the registration of the
said certificate, the one year period of redemption starts.
2. Deed of Conveyance – If after one (1) year there is no redemption a deed of
conveyance is executed (Sec. 33).

The deed of conveyance is what operates to transfer to the purchaser whatever rights
the judgment debtor had in the property. The certificate of sale after execution sale
merely is a memorial of the fact of sale and does not operate as a conveyance.

The purchaser acquires no better right than what the judgment debtor had in the
property levied upon. Thus, if the judgment debtor had already transferred the
property executed prior to the levy and no longer has an interest in the property, the
execution purchaser acquires no right (Pacheco v. CA, G.R. No. L-48689, August 31,
1987). The remedy of the purchaser will be that in Sec. 34.

When a third person is in possession: The procedure is for the court to order a
hearing and determine the nature of such adverse possession.

SECTION 34. RECOVERY OF PRICE IF SALE IS NOT EFFECTIVE; REVIVAL OF

JUDGMENT

THE PURCHASER MAY RECOVER THE PURCHASE PRICE WHEN:

1. The purchaser or his successor-in-interest fails to recover possession of the
property; or
2. The purchaser is evicted due to:
a. Irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale; or
b. Judgment has been reversed or set aside (e.g. on appeal, when discretionary
execution is granted); or
c. The property sold was exempt from execution; or
d. A third person has vindicated his claim to the property.
When the sale was not effective under the circumstances in this section, the
purchaser may:
1. File a motion in the same action or file a separate action to recover from the
judgment creditor the price paid;
2. File a motion for revival of judgment in his name against the judgment debtor.
Revival of Judgment in Sec. 6 Revival of Judgment in Sec. 34
As to commencement
The action is commenced by filing a By filing a motion for revival of judgment
complaint for revival of judgment for it is before the court which rendered the
an independent civil action. judgment sought to be revived.
As to execution of judgment by mere motion
It is no longer possible to execute the The judgment sought to be revived in the
judgment by mere motion because five name of the highest bidder was actually
(5) years have already lapsed from entry executed by mere motion within five (5)
thereof. years from entry.
 Revival of Judgment in Sec. 6 Revival of Judgment in Sec. 34
As to person who avails the remedy
The judgment creditor himself, or his The highest bidder in the public auction
assignee, or successors-in-interest. sale.
As to purpose
Filed to revive judgment in the name of
the higest bidder in order that he may
recover from the judgment debtor
Filed to revive a judgment which has
because he was not able to acquire the
become dormant in order that it may
property he purchased at the auction sale
again be executed by mere motion.
yet the price he paid was delivered to the
judgment creditor in discharge of the
obligation.

SECTION 35. RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION OR REIMBURSEMENT

REMEDIES OF THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR IN AID OF EXECUTION

1. If the execution is returned unsatisfied, he may cause examination of the
judgment debtor as to his property and income (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 36);
Note: The order of examination of the judgment obligor shall be issued only by the
court which rendered the judgment.

2. He may cause examination of the debtor of the judgment debtor as to any debt
owed by him or to any property of the judgment debtor in his possession (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 37);

3. A party or other person may be compelled, by an order or subpoena, to attend

before the court or commissioner to testify as provided in Secs. 36 & 37(ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 38);

4. If the court finds property of the judgment debtor or money due him, not exempt
from execution, either in his own hands or that of any person, the court may order
the property applied to the satisfaction of the judgment (ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 40);

5. If the court finds the earnings of the judgment debtor for his personal serviced are
more than sufficient for his family’s needs, it may order payment in fixed monthly
installments. Failure to pay any such installments when due without good excuse,
may be punished by indirect contempt (ROC, RULE 39,Sec. 40);

6. The court may appoint a receiver for the property of the judgment debtor not exempt
from execution or forbid a transfer or disposition or interference with such property.
(ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 41 in relation to ROC, RULE 59, Sec. 1, par. (c));
7. If the court finds that the judgment debtor has an ascertainable interest in real
property either as mortgagor, mortgagee, or otherwise, and his interest can be
ascertained without controversy, the court may order the sale of such interest.
(ROC, RULE 39, Sec. 42);
8. If the person alleged to have the property of the judgment debtor or the reason
indebted to him, claims an adverse interest in the property, or denies the debt, the
court may authorize the judgment-creditor to institute an action to recover the
property, forbid its transfer and may punish disobedience for contempt (ROC,
RULE 39, Sec. 43).
Note: The person indebted to the judgment obligor may pay to the sheriff holding the
writ of execution the amount of his debt or so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy the judgment, and the sheriff’s receipt shall be a sufficient discharge for the
amount so paid or directed to be credited by the judgment obligee on the executtion.

SECTION 44. ENTRY OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT BY CLERK OF COURT

SECTION 45. ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH OR WITHOUT ADMISSION

SECTION 46. WHEN PRINCIPAL BOUND BY JUDGMENT AGAINST SURETY

When a judgment is rendered against the surety, the principal debtor is also bound by
the judgment from the time he has notice of the action or proceeding, and an
opportunity at the surety’s request to join the defense.
SECTION 47. EFFECT OF JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDERS
This refers to judgments which are considered as conclusive, either against the whole
world (action in rem), which is governed by Sec. 47, par. (a), or between the parties
to the action or proceeding only (action in personam), which is governed by Sec. 47,
par. (b).

Two parts:
1. Res Judicata – also known as bar by former judgment or direct estoppel by
judgment. It covers paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 47.
2. Conclusiveness of Judgment – also known as estoppel by verdict or estoppel
by record, or collateral estoppel by judgment or preclusion of issue or rule of auter
action pendant. It covers paragraph (c) of Rule 47.

RES JUDICATA (A Matter Adjudged)

It is a rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the
merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them,
constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand
or, causes of action. (Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo, G.R. No. 178495, July 26, 2010).

Requisites of res judicata or bar by prior judgment:

1. A final judgment or order – The judgment must be final and executory which is
beyond the power of the court to alter (Hubanib v. Insular Drug, G.R. No. L-43549,
February 19, 1937);
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties by the court rendering it -
If the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the
judgment is void and cannot be invoked as res judicata (Republic Planters Bank v.
Molina, G.R. No. L-54287, September 28, 1988);

3. Judgment upon the merits;

General Rule: A dismissal without a trial is not an adjudication upon the merits

Exceptions:
a. Dismissal with prejudice on the ground of willful and deliberate forum shopping
(ROC, RULE 7, Sec. 5);
b. Dismissal with prejudice on the ground of res judicata, prescription, payment, or
unenforceability under the statue of frauds (ROC, RULE 16, Sec. 5);
c. Second order of dismissal on notice of the plaintiff (ROC, RULE 17, Sec. 1);
d. Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with the rules or an order of the court
(ROC, RULE 17, Sec. 3);
e. Dismissal with prejudice for failure to attend the pre-trial or submit a pre-trial brief
(ROC, RULE 18, Sec. 5 and 6).

4. Between the two cases:

a. There is identity of parties – Identity of parties exists when (1) the parties in both
cases are the same, or (2) the actions are between those in privity with them, as
between their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity,
or (3) where there is substantial identity even if there are additional parties.

There is also identity of parties even if the defendant in the first case becomes the
plaintiff, and vice-versa (HSBC v. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. L-8437, March 23, 1915).

b. Identity of subject matter – e.g. the actions involve the same contract, promissory
note or land;

c. Identity of cause of action – There is identity of causes of action when the two
actions are based on the same delict or wrong committed by the defendant even if the
remedies are different (Quiogue v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-13159, February 2, 1962).

The rule is that a mortage-creditor has a single cause of action against a mortgagor-
debtor, that is, to recover the debt. The mortgagor-creditor has the option of either
filing a personal action for collection of sum of money or instituting a real action to
foreclosure on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative and each
remedy is complete by itself. If the mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate
mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the debt, and vice versa (Flores v.
Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011).
A rule that would authorize the plaintiff to bring a personal action against the debtor and
simultaneously or successively another action against the mortgaged property, would
result not only in multiplicity of suits so offensive to justice and obnoxious to law and
equity, but also in subjecting the defendant to the vexation of being sued in the place of
his residence or of the residence of the plaintiff, and them again in the place where the
property lies (Id).

NOTE: No res judicata in:

1. Revival of Judgment
Cause of action is for revival of dormant judgment.
2. Annulment of Judgment.
Cause of action is extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction; Subject matter is the
judgment itself.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, no matter how erroneous a judgment may be, once it
becomes final, it cannot be corrected.

Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of Judgment

Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is
rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again
be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands,
purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same (Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo,
supra).

Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, such material fact becomes

binding and conclusive on the parties. When a right or fact has been judicially tried
and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such
trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed,
should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them (Id).

Thus, it has the effect of preclusion only of issues. The parties in both actions may be
the same but the causes of action are different.

Summary of Differences between Res Judicata or Bar by Former Judgment and

Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of Judgment
Bar by Former Judgment Conclusiveness of Judgment
There is identity of parties, subject matter There is only identity of parties and
and cause of action. subject matter.
The first judgment constitute as an The first judgment is conclusive only as to
absolute bar to all matters directly matters directly adjudged and actually
adjudged and those that might have been litigated in the first action. The second
adjudged. action can be prosecuted.
It has the effect of preclusion only of
It has the effect of preclusion of claims.
issues.
Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No 150134, 31 October 2007

• There is no doubt that the judgment on appeal relative to Civil Case No. 94-1610 (that
rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 50591) was a final judgment. Not only did it dispose of the
case on the merits; it also became executory as a consequence of the denial of
FEBTCs motion for reconsideration and appeal.Neither is there room to doubt that the
judgment in Civil Case No. 94-1610 was on the merits for it determined the rights and
liabilities of the parties. To recall, it was ruled that: (1) DATICOR overpaid by P5.3
million; (2) FEBTC was bound to refund the excess payment but because DATICOR’s
claim against FEBTC was only P965,000, the court could only grant so much as the
relief prayed for; and (3) PDCP has no further claim against DATICOR because its
obligation had already been paid in full. Right or wrong, that judgment bars another
case based upon the same cause of action.

• As to the requisite of identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, it cannot
be gainsaid that the first case, Civil Case No. 94-1610, was brought by petitioners to
recover an alleged overpayment of P5.3 million, P965,000 from FEBTC and P4.335
million from PDCP. On the other hand, Civil Case No. 00-540, filed by the same
petitioners, was for the recovery of P4.335 million, which is admittedly part of the P5.3
million earlier sought to be recovered in Civil Case No. 94-1610. This time, the action
was brought solely against FEBTC which in turn impleaded PDCP as a third party
defendant.
Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No 150134, 31 October 2007

• In determining whether causes of action are identical to warrant the application of

the rule of res judicata, the test is to ascertain whether the same evidence which
is necessary to sustain the second action would suffice to authorize a recovery in
the first even in cases in which the forms or nature of the two actions are
different. Simply stated, if the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two
actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is
a bar to the subsequent action.

• In the two cases, petitioners imputed to FEBTC the same alleged wrongful act of
mistakenly receiving and refusing to return an amount in excess of what was
due it in violation of their right to a refund. The same facts and evidence
presented in the first case, Civil Case No. 94-1610, were the very same facts and
evidence that petitioners presented in Civil Case No. 00-540.

• Accordingly, the trial court correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 00-540 on the
ground of res judicata. The judgment in Civil Case No. 94-1610 operated as a bar
to Civil Case No. 00-540.
Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company
G.R. No 150134, 31 October 2007

• Bar by former judgment makes the judgment rendered in the first case an
absolute bar to the subsequent action since that judgment is conclusive not
only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as to any
other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could
have been adjudged therein. It is in this concept that the term res judicata is
more commonly and generally used as a ground for a motion to dismiss in
civil cases.

• The second rule of res judicata embodied in Section 47(c), Rule 39 is

conclusiveness of judgment. This rule provides that any right, fact, or
matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or
decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment
therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies
whether or not the claim or demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two
suits is the same. It refers to a situation where the judgment in the prior action
operates as an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined or which
were necessarily included therein.
Rule of Stare Decisis
This rule holds that when the Supreme Court has laid down a principle of law
applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply to it to all
future cases where the facts are substantially the same (Hacienda Bino v. Cuenca,
G.R. No. 150478, Apri 15, 2005).

Doctrine of Law of the Case

According to this principle, whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling
legal rule or decision between the same parties in the case continues to be the law of
the case whether correct on genaral principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
This principle generally finds application in cases where an appellate court passes on a
question and remands the case to the lower court for futher proceedings. The question
there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal (RCPI v. CA, G.R.
No. 139762, April 26, 2006).

Note: This rule does not apply to resolutions rendered in connection with the case
wherein no rationale has been expounded on the merits of that action (Jarantilla v. CA,
G.R. No. 80194, March 21, 1969).

Immutability of Judgments
Once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The
decisions of the court must be immutable at some definite period of time, no matter
how erroneous a judgment may be. Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.
(See Rule 36 for Exceptions)

Res Judicata vs. Law of the Case vs. Stare Decisis

(Ayala Corporation v. Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
134284, December 1, 2000)

Res Judicata Law of the Case

Operates only in the particular and single
The ruling in one case is carried over to
case where the ruling arises and is not
another case between the same parties.
carried into other cases as a precedent.

Law of the Case Stare Decisis

The ruling adhered to in the particular
Once a point of law has been established
case need not be followed as a precedent
by the court, that point of law will,
in subsequent litigation between other
generally, be followed by the same court
parties, neither by the appellate court
and by all courts of lower rank in
which made the decision followed on a
subsequent cases where the same legal
subsequent appeal in the same cases,
issue is raised.
nor by any other court.
SECTION 48. EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDERS

Public Policy Principle

A judgment by a court is enforceable only within its territorial jurisdiction

Effect of Foreign Judgments: Provided that the foreign tribunal had jurisdiction:
1. In case of judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon
the title to the thing; or

2. In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence

of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent
title.

Note: The judgment of foreign tribunal cannot be enforced by execution in the

Philippines. Such judgment only creates a right of action and its non-satisfaction, a
cause of action, and it is necessary that a suit be brought upon said foreign
judgment in our local courts.

Judgments of foreign courts may only be enforced in the Philippines through an

action validly heard in the RTC. Thus, it is actually the judgment of the Philippine
court enforcing the foreign judgment that shall be executed (U.P. Law Complex,
Suggested Answers to the 2007 Bar Examination in Remedial Law).
A foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced in the Philippines under the rules on the
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. A foreign arbitral award is not a
foreign judgment, and pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (R.A.
9285), in relation to 1958 New York Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards, the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards
shall be in accordance with the rules of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court.
At present, the SC is yet to promulgate rules of procedure on the subject matter (U.P.
Law Complex, Suggested Answers to the 2007 Bar Examination in Remedial Law).

Where to file
The suit upon the foreign judgment is considered as one incapable of pecuniary
estimation and therefore it must be filed in the RTC.

There are two ways of giving effect to a foreign judgment: (a) an ordinary action to
enforce the foreign judgment may be filed in court or (b) it may be pleaded in an answer
or a motion to dismiss (2 HERRERA, supra at 531).

Note: In both instances, the judgment may be repelled by evidence of.

1. Want of Jurisdiction;
2. Want of Notice;
3. Collusion;
4. Fraud; or
5. Clear mistake of law or fact.
APPEAL

Three Modes of Appeal:

1. Ordinary Appeal (ROC, RULE 40 and 41)
a. Notice of appeal
b. Record on appeal
2. Petition for Review (ROC, RULE 42)
3. Appeal by Certiorari (ROC, RULE 45)

Outline of Modes of Appeal

Rule Mode of Appeal Court being reviewed Issues that may be
Appellate Court raised
Rule 40 Notice of appeal/ Record on MTC RTC Questions of law or facts or
appeal filed with the court of both (ROC, RULE 41, Sec.
origin (MTC). Copies of the 6).
notice of appeal and record
shall be served upon the
appellee.

Docket fees shall be paid to

the clerk of court of the MTC
(ROC, RULE 40, Sec. 5)
Rule Mode of Appeal
Rule 41 Notice of appeal/ Record on
appeal filed with the court of
origin (RTC). Copies of the
notice of appeal and record
shall be served upon the
appellee.
Docket fees shall be paid to
the clerk of court of the RTC
(ROC, RULE 40, Sec. 5)
Rule 42 Verified Petition for Review
filed with the CA with a
Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping. Copies shall be
served on the RTC and the
appellee.
Docket and other lawful fees
and P500 deposit for costs
shall be paid to the clerk of
court of the CA (ROC, RULE
42, Sec. 1)
Court being reviewed Issues that may be
Appellate Court raised
RTC (exercising original Questions of law and fact
jurisdiction) (ROC, RULE 41, Sec 6 and
ROC, RULE 44, Sec. 13
CA (e)).
Otherwise, if the appeal
would raise only questions
of law, it should be filed
directly with the SC under
ROC, Rule 45
MTC RTC Questions of law or fact or
(exercising appellate both (ROC, RULE 42, Sec.
jurisdiction) 2).
CA
Rule Mode of Appeal
Rule 43 Verified Petition for Review filed
with the CA with a Certificate of
Non-Forum Shopping. Copies
shall be served on the RTC and
the appelle.
Docket and other lawful fees and
P500 deposit for costs shall be
paid to the clerk of court of the CA
(ROC, RULE 43, Sec. 5)
Rule 45 Verified Petition for Review on
Certiorari filed with the SC with a
Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping. Copies shall be served
on the lower court concerned and
on the appellee.
Docket and other lawful fees and
P500 deposit for costs shall be
paid to the clerk of court of the CA
(ROC, RULE 43, Sec. 3)
Notice of appeal (in criminal cases
where the penalty imposed is
death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment (ROC, RULE 45,
Sec. 9)
Court being reviewed
Appellate Court
Quasi-judicial agency exercising
quasi-judicial functions enumerated
therein CSC, Ombudsman
(administrative/disciplinary cases)
CA
RTC (exercising original jurisdiction)
CA, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax
Appeals (en banc)
SC
Issues that may be
raised
Questions of law or fact or both.
(ROC,RULE 43, Sec. 6).
Note: Unlike in the other modes
of appeal, an appeal under this
Rule shall not stay the award
judgment, final order or
resolution unless the CA directs
otherwise (ROC, RULE 43,
Sec.12)
Questions of law only (ROC,
RULE 45, Sec. 1)
Except if the petition for review
on certiorari is from a judgment
rendered in petitions for writ of
amparo habeas data, or
kalikasan.
 Outline of the reglementary periods within which to file appeals and the
extensions allowed
Governing Rule Period to Appeal
Rule 40 and Notice of appeal within 15 days from notice
Rule 41 of judgment or of the denial of the
appellant’s MR/MNT
When a record on appeal is required –
within 30 days from notice of judgment or of
the denial of the appellant’s MR/MNT
Habeas Corpus – notice of appeal is filed
within 48 hours from notice of judgment or
denial of MR/MNT.
Rule 42 Petition for review – within 15 days from
notice of the decision sought to be reviewed
or of denial of petitioner’s MR/MNT.
Extension Allowed
Period to file notice of appeal is non-
extendible.
Reason: It is very simple to prepare a
notice to appeal.
Period to file a record on appeal may be
extended provided the motion for extension
thereof is filed within the original 30 day
period.
Reason: Preparation of the record on
appeal may take time for it may require
compilation of voluminous records.
May be extended for 15 days upon proper
motion and the payment of the full amount
of the docket and other lawful fees and
deposit for costs before the expiration of the
original 15 day period. No further extension
shall be granted except for the most
compelling reasons and in no case to
exceed 15 days.
Governing Rule Period to Appeal Extension Allowed

Rule 45 Petition for review on certiorari – within
15 days from notice of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution, or from the date of
its last publication or the denial of the
petitioner’s MR/MNT
On motion duly filed and served, with full
payment of the docket and other lawful fees
and the deposit for costs before the
expiration of the original 15 day period, the
SC may for justifiable reasons grant an
extension of thirty (30) days only within
which to file the petition.

When appeal is a matter of right:

1. In civil cases, the first appeal is a matter of right. Appeals from decisions of the
MTC (Rule 40) or RTC (Rule 41) rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction
should be granted as a matter of right if filed within the reglementary period.
Exception: In civil cases, first appeal is not a matter of right if filed with the Supreme
Court. Review of decisions by the Supreme Court is not a matter of right but of sound
judicial discretion, and will only be granted only where there are special and
important reasons thereof (ROC, RULE 45, Sec. 6).

2. In criminal cases, when the RTC imposes death penalty, the Court of Appeals
shall automatically review the judgment (ROC, RULE 122, Sec. 3, par. (d)). If the
Court of Appeals finds that death penalty should be imposed, the CA shall not render
judgment but certify and elevate the case to the Supreme Court for review (ROC,
RULE124, Sec. 13, par. (a)).
Note: Only final judgments or orders can be appealed as distinguised from
interlocutory judgments or orders which are not appealable (ROC, RULE 41, Sec. 1).

The right to appeal is neither a part of due process but a mere statutory privilege that
has to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the
rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost (Stolt-Nielsen v. NLRC, G.R. NO.
147623, December 13, 2005, Beatingo v. Gasis, G.R. No. 179641, February 9, 2011).
Thank you! 