G.R. No. L-51151 July 24, 1981 PAZ G. ROMUALDEZ, BELEN A. GUECO, assisted by her husband, JOSE TINSAY, and CATALINA A. GUECO, assisted by her husband JOSE SIOPONGCO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.ANTONIO P. TIGLAO, ERNESTO TIGLAO, BERNARDO TIGLAO and JUANA TIGLAO, defendants, ESTATE OF FELISA TIGLAO, defendant-appellant.

TOPIC: REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT ON MONEY CLAIMS; REVIVE, THEN FILE AS A MONEY CLAIM

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal on the judgment rendered by the CFI allowing a revival of a judgment on a money claim.

FACTS:

            On March 15, 1960, the CFI rendered judgment against Antonio Tiglao and his sureties Felisa Tiglao and others. The CFI ordered them to pay to Paz Romuladez Antonio’s unpaid rentals for the lease of a hacienda and its sugar quota with payment for damages and attorney’s fees. However, the order was not complied with notwithstanding a writ of execution to enforce it.

Consequently, on May 18, 1970, Romualdez et.al. filed an action with the CFI against Tiglao and his sureties in order to revive the abovementioned judgment. However, Felisa Tiglao before the commencement of the new action and her estate was being settled in a special proceeding, thus, it was her estate which was made a defendant in the complaint. The administratrix of the estate, Maningning Tiglao-Naguiat, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the CFI has no jurisdiction to hear the suit seeking to revive judgment. She invoked Sec. 1, Rule 87: “No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commence against the executor or administrator,..”

RTC: The trial court ruled in favor of Romualdez and gave the same orders as the CFI on 1960. Hence this appeal on this trial court’s ruling to the SC for question of law.

Estate of Felisa: The present action “is one for the recovery of a sum of money so that it is barred by Sec. I of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court and that the remedy of the appellees is to present their claim in Special Proc. No. Q-10731” of the CFI of Rizal.

ISSUE: Whether the said action for revival of judgment on money claims was proper.

HELD: Yes. The original judgment rendered on May 31, 1960 has become stale because of its non-execution after the lapse of five years (Sec. 6, Rule 39). Accordingly, it cannot be presented against the Estate of Felisa Tiglao unless it is first revived by action. This is precisely why Romualdez et. al. have instituted the second suit whose object is not to make the Estate of Felisa Tiglao pay the sums of money adjudged in the first judgment but merely to keep alive said judgment so that the sums therein awarded can be presented as claims against the estate in Special Proc. No. Q-10731 of the CFI of Rizal.

*Concurring Opinion of J. Aquino: While it is true, as a general rule, that “no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commence against the executor or administrator,..”; the circumstances in this action calls for it to be an exception. The case was to prevent the original judgment’s extinguishment by prescription.