Bausa vs. Heirs of Dino

June 5, 1978:

Bausa filed recovery of possession.RTC Sorsogon.

October 22, 1985:

RTC declares Bausa owner.Require Dino to return possession and rent.

January 28, 1987:

Juan Dino is predecessor in interest.Appeal by Dino.Dismissed.Became final and executory on this date.

December 19, 1987:

Granted by RTC: motion for writ of execution.Writ was issued.Not served to Juan Dino.

Meanwhile:

Dino filed certiorari in SC.Assail CA Decision.Dismissed by SC.Resolution became final on November 26, 1987.

Service of Alias Writ of ExecutionServedDino: refused to signPetition for demolitionWrit of demolitionNot implemented: writ of demolition (shown by sheriffs return)

Unable to execute: Bausa filed Complaint for Execution in RTC

Juan Dino died. Complaint filed against heirs.

Heirs: action barred by prescription.

2000:

RTC: action to revive October decision is timely filed.Proceed to execute.

Dino appealed to CA.CA: reversed decision of RTC. Not timely filed.

Bausa: MR. / denied January 19, 2005

Buasa: certiorari

1. GAD: CA decision2. Disregarding motions for execution and demolition did it toll period to file independent action?3. Registered under torrens vs. tolling of period4. Filing of verified complaint already barred by prescription5. WON writ of execution was not specific as to which area was claimed

SC: can still enforce judgment.

Independent action: timely filed? Writ: not specific as to which area? PD 1529: Torrens vs. acquisitive prescription Allow revival of judgment. 1144, Civil Code & Rule 39, Sec. 6: revival of judgment Far from sleeping on rights Failed due to machinations of Dino

October 2, 1985January 28, 1987 final and executoryMay 8, 1987 Writ of execution grantedNot served: writAlias writ of executionSheriff: executed delivery of possessionDino: refused to signWrit of demolitionWrit: not implemented due to resistanceAction to revive judgment