Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Parañaque City
Branch 195

CARMENCITA S. ALINCASTRE
and AMPARO A. STA. ANA, as
represented by MARILYN
AVENA,
Petitioners, Civil Case No. 2017-141
For: Revival of Judgment

-versus-

SPS. POLICARPIO and ALICIA

CARADA, ESTATE OF SPS.
POLICARPIO and ALICIA
CARADA and HEIRS/
SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST
OF SPS. POLICARPIO and
ALICIA CARADA,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------x

AMENDED PETITION FOR REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT

Petitioners, CARMENCITA S. ALINCASTRE and AMPARO A.

STA. ANA, through the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable
Court, most respectfully state: THAT—

I. Nature of the Petition

1. This is an action for revival of judgment under Section 6,

Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which provides
that:

“Section 6. Execution by motion or by

independent action. – A final and executory
judgment or order may be executed on motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is
barred by the statute of limitations, a

1
 judgment may be enforced by action. The
revived judgment may also be enforced by motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry and
thereafter by action before it is barred by the
statute of limitations.” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

2. The judgments being sought to be revived in this

Petition are the following:

a. the Decision dated 18 March 2005, rendered by the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 195 of Parañaque City (hereafter
“RTC, Br. 195”) in Civil Case No. 99-0197 which is an action for
Annulment of Title and Reconveyance.

b. the Decision dated 30 September 2009, rendered

by the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases
docketed as CA-G.R. CV. No. 90832 and C.A. G.R. SP No.
101180.

c. the Resolution dated 27 May 2010 wherein the

Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by the Sps. Policarpio and Alicia Carada; and

d. the Resolution dated 10 December 2010, rendered

by the Supreme Court in the case entitled Sps. Policarpio
and Alicia Carada vs. Dionisio S. Alincastre, Jr., et. al. and
docketed as Supreme Court in G.R. No. 192392.

II. Parties to the Petition

3. Petitioner, CARMENCITA S. ALICASTRE (hereafter

referred to as “Carmen”), is a former Filipino citizen, of legal age,
single, and with present address at 86 Ashbury Blvd., Ajax, Ontario,
Canada while Petitioner AMPARO A. STA. ANA (hereafter referred to
as “Amparo”), is also a former Filipino citizen, of legal age, married
and with present address at 135 Rose Ave., Apt. 1216, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. Petitioners are represented herein by MARILYN
AVENA, and her authority is shown by a Joint Special Power of
Attorney1, executed by Carmen and Amparo.

1
Copy of the Joint Special Power of Attorney is herewith attached and made integral part of this
Petition as Annex “A”.

2
 3.1. For purposes of this action, Petitioners may be
served with orders, notices, resolutions and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court at the address of the
undersigned counsel indicated below.

3.2. While the instant petition is instituted by only two (2)

out of the seven (7) original plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 99-0197,
they (Carmen and Amparo) have the legal personality to
institute and pursue the present petition for revival of judgment.

3.3. Apropos is the High Court’s pronouncement in the

case of Clidoro vs. Jalmanzar2 citing Saligumba v. Palanog
and Basbas v. Sayson, thus:

“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 [in this case, the
original action for partition], 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. x x x

With the foregoing in mind, it is

understandable that there would be
instances where the parties in the
original case and in the subsequent
action for revival of judgment would
not be exactly the same. The mere
fact that the names appearing as
parties in the complaint for revival
of judgment are different from the
names of the parties in the original
case would not necessarily mean
2
G.R. No. 176598, July 9, 2014.

3
 that they are not the real parties-in-
interest. What is important is that, as
provided in Section 1, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court, they are "the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit."
Definitely, as the prevailing parties in
the previous case for partition, the
plaintiffs in the case for revival of
judgment would be benefited by the
enforcement of the decision in the
partition case.

xxx

In Basbas v. Sayson,12  the

Court pointed out that even just one
of the co-owners, by himself alone,
can bring an action for the recovery
of the coowned property, even
through an action for revival of
judgment, because the enforcement
of the judgment would result in
such recovery of property. Thus, as
in Basbas, it is not necessary in this
case that all of the parties, in whose
favor the case for partition was
adjudged, be made plaintiffs to the
action for revival of judgment. Any
which one of said prevailing parties,
who had an interest in the
enforcement of the decision, may
file the complaint for revival of
judgment, even just by himsel f.”
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

3.4. Following the above cited jurisprudence, Petitioners,

being co-owners of the subject property, have interest in the
enforcement of the Decision dated 18 March 2005. Thus, they
have legal standing to file and pursue the instant Petition for
Revival of Judgment.

4. On the other hand, Respondents Spouses Policarpio and

Alicia Carada are the Defendants in Civil Case No. Case No. 99-
0197. As such, they are therefore the judgment obligors in the
Decision dated 18 March 2005. The Estate of Spouses Policarpio and

4
Alicia Carada as well as their Heirs and/or Successors-in-interest are
being impleaded herein as real parties in interest because they stand
to be benefited or injured by any judgment in this suit. All the
Respondents may be served at with summons and other legal
processes of the Honorable Court at 405 Quirino Avenue, Don Galo,
Parañaque City.

5. The parties not being residents of the same barangay, it

is not a condition precedent in filing the instant petition that the matter
be submitted to conciliation proceeding before the barangay lupon or
pangkat.3

III. The Cause of Action

6. On 18 March 2005, the RTC, Br. 195 rendered the

4
Decision in Civil Case No. 99-0197 which is an action for Annulment
of Title and Reconveyance of a real property located in 405 Quirino
Avenue, Don Galo Parañaque, involving herein Petitioners and the
Spouses Carada. The dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the foregoing

considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as
follows:

1. The Deed of Donation, the

execution of which is denied by both plaintiffs
and defendants-spouses Carada, is hereby
declared null and void and of no legal effect.
The Registry of Deeds is hereby directed to
cancel Transfer Certificate of Title no. 128232
in the name of the defendant-spouses
Carada, and to restore Transfer of Certificate
of Title No. 123355 in the name of the
plaintiffs;

2. Defendant-spouses Policarpio and

Alicia Carada are hereby ordered to deliver
possession/reconvey the subject property to
plaintiffs as well as all fruits and income
derived from it from January 1999;

3. Defendant Sonia de Jesus is

hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs the following:

3
Section 408 (f) of the Local Government Code as amended.
4
Copy of the Decision dated 18 March 2005 is attached and made integral part of this petition as
Annex “B”

5
 a. P100,000.00 as and by way of
moral damages;
b. P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees
plus P2,000.00 per appearance fee of
counsel; and

c. Cost of suit;

4. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to

return to defendants-spouses Policarpio and
Alicia Carada the amount P2,050,000.00,
which they have received as partial payment
of the subject property;

5. Defendants-spouses counter-
claim against the plaintiffs is hereby ordered
dismissed for lack of merit; and

6. The Third-party Complaint filed by

defendant-spouses Carada against Sonia de
Jesus is likewise ordered DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute.

SO ORDERED.”

7. On 19 April 2005, Spouses Carada filed a Motion for

Reconsideration and/or New Trial whereby they prayed that the 18
March 2005 Decision be set aside and that a new trial be granted for
them to present evidence against Sonia de Jesus.

8. On 28 July 2005, the RTC issued an Order5 partially

granting the said motion but only insofar as the third party complaint
against Sonia De Jesus is concerned, for purposes of clarity,
pertinent portion of the Order is quoted below, thus:

“WHEREFORE, let the decision dated March

18, 2005 be reconsidered and set aside but only
insofar as the dismissal of the third party
complaint filed by the defendant Spouses
Policarpio and Alicia Carada against third party
defendant Sonia de Jesus is concerned. The rest
of the decision stays. x x x” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

5
Copy of the Order dated 28 July 2005 is herewith attached and made integral part of this petition
as Annex ”C”

6
 9. On 30 May 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision6 on the
third party complaint subject of the new trial, finding third party
defendant Sonia de Jesus liable to the third party complainant,
Spouses Carada.

10. Despite the favorable judgment therein, Spouses Carada

still filed a Notice of Appeal from the Decision dated 30 May 2006,
which was however subsequently denied by the RTC in its Order7
dated 27 June 2006 for their failure to pay the corresponding docket
fees.

11. Meanwhile, Petitioners filed a Motion for Execution of

the Decision dated 18 March 2005. Taking note of the fact that no
appeal has been taken by the parties within the reglementary period,
the RTC, Br. 195, in an Order8 dated 05 September 2006 granted the
said motion for execution, pertinent portions of which state as follows:

“As regards the motion for execution of

the March 18, 2005 decision in so far as the
complaint of Dionisio Alincastre, Jr., et. al.
against defendants Spouses Policarpio and
Alicia Carada, et. al. is concerned, considering
that no motion for reconsideration nor appeal,
nor certiorari had been filed by either of the
parties within the reglementary perio, said
decision had already become final and
executory, hence, execution thereof is in
order.

WHEREFORE, let a Writ of Execution of

the Decision dated March 18, 2005 be issued
against defendants spouses Policarpio and
Alicia Carada in favor of plaintiffs Dionisio
Alicanstre, et. al. x x x” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

12. In the same Order, the RTC, Br. 195 also allowed the
Spouses Carada’s Notice of Appeal but only in so far as the Decision
dated 30 May 2006 is concerned. This appeal was later on docketed
as C.A-G.R. CV NO. 90832 in the Court of Appeals.

6
Copy of the Decision dated 30 May 2006 is herewith attached and made integral part of this
petition as Annex ”D”
7
Copy of the Order dated 27 June 2006 is herewith attached and made integral part of this
petition as Annex “E”
8
Copy of the Order dated 05 September 2006 is herewith attached and made integral part of this
petition as Annex ”G”

7
 13. The granting of the motion for execution of the main
judgment compelled Spouses Carada to institute a Petition for Relief
from Judgment praying that the 18 March 2005 Decision be set aside.
However, said petition was denied by the RTC, Br, 195 in its Order9
dated 18 July 2007 for lack of merit and for having been filed out of
time.

14. The Spouses Carada filed a motion for reconsideration

from the Order dated 18 July 2007 and upon denial thereof, Spouses
Carada subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
before the Court of Appeals which was docketed as C.A-G.R. SP NO.
101180.

15. Thereafter, Spouses Carada filed a Motion to Consolidate

C.A-G.R CV No. 90832 and C.A.-G.R. SP NO. 101180 which the
Court of Appeals granted in its Resolution10 dated 11 September
2009.

16. On 30 September 2009, the Court of Appeals rendered a

Decision11 in the consolidated cases by denying the appeal and
dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Spouses Carada, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered,

the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The
Decision dated May 30, 2006 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 195, Parañaque City in
Civil Case No. 99-0197 is AFFIRMED.

In the like manner, the instant Petition

for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. The
Orders dated July 18, 2007 and October 9,
2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 195,
of Parañaque City in Civil Case No. 99-0197
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

9
Copy of the Order dated 18 July 2007 is herewith attached and made integral part of this petition
as Annex ”H”
10
Copy of the Court of Appeals Resolution dated 11 September 2009 is herewith attached and
made integral part of this petition as Annex ”I”
11
Copy of the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 September 2009 is herewith attached and
made integral part of this petition as Annex ”J”

8
 17. Adamantly, Spouses Carada filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution12
dated 27 May 2010.

18. Upon the denial of their motion for reconsideration,

Spouses Carada elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

19. However, in its Resolution13 dated 11 August 2010, the

Supreme Court finally wrote finis to the more than a decade wait of
the Petitioners for justice by denying the petition in this wise:

“Considering the allegations, issues, and

arguments adduced in the petition for review for
certiorari of the Decision and Resolution dated 30
September 2009 and 27 May 2010, respectively,
of the Court of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 90832
and CA-G.R. SP No. 101180, the Court resolves
to DENY the petition for failure of petitioners
to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals
committed any reversible error in the
challenged decision and resolution as to
warrant the exercise of this Court’s
discretionary appellate jurisdiction.” (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

20. On 10 December 2010, the above-quoted Resolution

became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries
of Judgments as shown by the Entry of Judgment 14 issued by the
Supreme Court itself.

21. On 12 April 2011, Spouses Carada filed a Motion for the

Issuance of Writ of Execution which was granted by the Regional
Trial Court in its Order15 dated 30 May 2011.

22. However, despite the issuance of the writ of execution,

the same was not enforced by either of the parties. Thus, more than
five (5) years had lapsed since the Resolution dated 11 August
2010 became final and executory on 10 December 2010.
12
Copy of the Court of Appeals Resolution dated 27 May 2010 is herewith attached and made
integral part of this petition as Annex ”K”
13
Copy of the Supreme Court (First Division) Resolution dated 11 August 2010 is herewith
attached and made integral part of this Petition as Annex “L”.
14
Copy of the Entry of Judgment issued by the Supreme Court (First Division) is herewith
attached and mad integral part of this Complaint as Annex ”M”.
15
Copy of the Writ of Execution issued by the RTC is herewith attached and made integral part of
this Petition as Annex “N”.

9
 23. On 22 March 2017, in an attempt to amicably settle the
controversy between them, Petitioners, through the undersigned
counsel sent a Letter16 dated 16 March 2017 to Spouses Carada,
demanding the return of the subject property including the fruits and
income thereof from 05 January 1999. Similarly, to show good faith
and their willingness to comply with their obligation under the
Decision dated 18 March 2005 to return the amount of
Php2,050,000.00, they tendered a Manager’s Check for the same
amount to Spouses Carada.

24. However, in a Letter17 dated 28 March 2017, the

daughter of Sps. Carada, through Atty. Elena Rodriguez, negated the
Petitioners’ claim for fruits and income of the subject property and
instead demanded a total amount of Php 6, 078, 250.00, which they
claim represents the amount of Php 2, 050, 000.00 plus interest
thereon computed from January 1999.

25. Petitioners, through a Letter18 dated 26 April 2017,

pointed out that they are entitled to the fruits and income of the
subject property from January 1999 as this was expressly declared in
the Decision dated 18 March 2005. Thus, considering the location
and the nature of the subject property, a minimum of Php 30, 000.00
rentals per month is appropriate. Accordingly, Petitioners total claim
from Respondents is Php 18, 412, 650.00 inclusive of interests
computed from January 2005.

26. Nevertheless, if only to end the controversy and to once

more be able to settle in their ancestral home, Petitioners offered that
Respondents’ claim of Php 6, 078, 250.00 be set off with their of Php
18,412, 650.00 claims.

27. Unfortunately, despite the efforts made by Petitioners, no

settlement has been reached by the parties.

28. Thus, the instant Petition.

29. Now, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that a final and executory judgment or order may be
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry.
16
Copy of the Letter dated 16 March 2017 is herewith attached and made integral part of this
Petition as Annex “O”.
17
Copy of the Letter dated 28 March 2017 with attached Manager’s check for Php 2, 050, 000.00
is herewith attached and made integral part of this Petition as Annex “P”.
18
Copy of the Letter 26 April 2017 is herewith attached and made integral part of this petition as
Annex “Q”.

10
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of
limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.

30. Corollary, the New Civil Code provides that an action

upon a judgment must be brought within 10 years from the time the
judgment became final and executory, to wit:

“Art. 1144. The following actions must

be brought within ten years from the time the
right of actions accrues:
xxxx
(3) Upon a judgment.

Art. 1152. The period for prescription of

action to demand the fulfillment of the
obligations declared by a judgment
commences from the time the judgment
became final.”

31. In this case, the Decision dated 18 March 2005

became final and executory only on 10 December 2010.
Considering that more than five years had lapsed from its
finality and that the same is not yet barred by the Statute of
Limitations, the action to enforce the Decision dated 18 March
2005 can still be brought by independent action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the Honorable Court grant this Petition by ordering the
revival of the following:

1. Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court

dated 18 March 2005

2. Decision dated 30 September 2009, rendered by

the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases docketed
as CA-G.R. CV. No. 90832 and C.A. G.R. SP No. 101180.

3. Resolution dated 27 May 2010 wherein the Court

of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
the Sps. Policarpio and Alicia Carada; and

11
 d. Resolution dated 10 December 2010, rendered
by the Supreme Court in the case entitled Sps. Policarpio
and Alicia Carada vs. Dionisio S. Alincastre, Jr., et. al. and
docketed as Supreme Court in G.R. No. 192392.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Pasig City, for Parañaque City, Metro Manila, _ June 2017.

SURTIDA & HERNANDEZ

ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
Counsel for the Petition
6th Floor, Strata 100 Bldg.,
F. Ortigas Jr., Road (Emerald Ave.,)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila
Tel. Nos.: (632) 636-6030; 632-0273
Email: attys@hsglegal.com

By:

VENUS A. TORBELA-TIO
PTR No. 2512777; 01/04/17; Pasig City
IBP No. 1055720; 01/04/17; RSM
Roll of Attorneys No. 55899
MCLE Compliance No. V-0016978; 16/3/16

12