Butuan City Government v. Heirs of Malvar
This is a civil case involving the revival of a judgment by the Butuan City Government against the heirs of the late Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to deny the petition for failure to show any reversible error in affirming the rendition of summary judgment. The legal issue in this case is whether a summary judgment is proper for the revival of a judgment, and the Court ruled that it is, as long as the complaint was filed within the prescribed period and there are no genuine issues as to any material fact. The action for revival of judgment is separate from issues regarding the enforcement of the original decision, which can be raised once the judgment has been revived.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230848. June 26, 2019.]
BUTUAN CITY GOVERNMENT, petitioner, vs.HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES SEVERO MALVAR AND TRINIDAD MALVAR, REPRESENTED BY DR. POTENCIANO MALVAR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230848 (Butuan City Government v. Heirs of the late Spouses Severo Malvar and Trinidad Malvar, represented by Dr. Potenciano Malvar)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 22, 2016 Decision 2 and the February 14, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03627-MIN for failure of petitioner Butuan City Government to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the rendition of summary judgment to revive the May 23, 2006 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 3 (RTC Decision). HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, a summary judgment is proper when the court finds that the answer filed by the defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 5 Notably, the genuine issue in an action for revival of judgment is whether the complaint was filed beyond five (5) years but before the end of the ten (10)-year prescriptive period. Issues pertaining to the enforcement of the RTC Decision are irrelevant in this action for revival of judgment and can be raised as defenses once the judgment has been revived. In this case, the established facts already show that the action has not prescribed because only seven (7) years had lapsed from the finality of the RTC Decision up to the filing of the complaint for revival of judgment 6 on September 11, 2013. Therefore, the summary judgment to revive the RTC Decision was proper.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
2.Id. at 20-24. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ronaldo B. Martin, concurring.
3.Id. at 36-37.
4.Id. at 38-40. Penned by Judge Francisco F. Maclang.
5. See id. at 22-23.
6.Id. at 41-43.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU