G.R. No.

143365 December 4, 2008 GENEROSO SALIGUMBA,

ERNESTO SALIGUMBA, and HEIRS OF SPOUSES VALERIA
SALIGUMBA AND ELISEO SALIGUMBA, SR., petitioners, vs. MONICA
PALANOG, respondent.
TOPIC: REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT ON MONEY CLAIMS; REVIVE,
THEN FILE AS MONEY CLAIM
NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal to the decision by the RTC
ruling against the Saligumbas in a petition for revival of an earlier
judgment also ruled against them.
FACTS: Spouses Monica and Avelino Palanog filed a complaint for
quieting of title with damages against spouses Valeria Saligumba and
Eliseo Saligumba, Sr. with the RTC. The spouses Palanogs alleged that
they have been in actual, open, adverse and continuous possession as
owners for more than 50 years of a land in Aklan. Allegedly, the spouses
Saligumbas prevented them from entering and residing on the said
property and had destroyed the barbed wires enclosing the land. Thus,
spouses Palanogs prayed that they be declared the true and rightful
owners of the same.
During the proceedings, Eliseo Saligumba Sr. died in 1984, while
Valeria Saligumba also passed away the following year. However, Atty.
Miralles, failed to inform the court of the said events. Further, he was
appointed as an MCTC judge and told the court that he would withdraw
as counsel for the spouses Saligumbas because of it. But, on the date of
the presentation of evidence of the spouses Saligumbas, only spouses
Palanogs and their counsel appeared. Thus, upon motion of the spouses
Palanogs, the spouses Saligumbas were deemed to have waived the
presentation of their evidence.
On August 7, 1987, the RTC rendered jugment declaring the
spouses Palanogs as the righful owners of the land and ordering the
spouses Saligumbas to vacate the premises. The trial court also directed
that a copy of its decision be furnished to Monica Palanog and Valeria
Saligumba. Later, a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the
said decision was filed. However, on May 8, 1997, the trial court ruled

that since more than 5 years had elapsed after the date of the decision's
finality, the decision could no longer be executed by mere motion.
So, on May 9, 1997, Monica Palanog, who is now a widow, filed an
action to revive and enforce the RTC decision on 1987 which she claimed
has not been barred by the statute of limitations. Eliseo Saligumba Jr.
and Eduardo Saligumba who are heirs and children of spouses
Saligumbas were also impleaded in the new action. Apparently, Eliseo
Saligumba Sr. died in 1984, while Valeria died in 1985. Further, no
motion for the substitution of the spouses was filed nor did an order issue
for the substitution of the deceased spouses Saligumbas in the complaint
filed by spouses Palanogs. Accordingly, Atty. Miralles and Eliseo
Saligumba Jr. never confirmed the death of the spouses despite notices
sent to them to appear. Moreover, the siblings were declared in default for
failure to file any responsive pleading.
RTC: On The trial court ruled in favor of Monica Palanog and ordered the
revival of the 1987 judgment. It also ruled that the non-substitution of
the deceased spouses did not have any legal significance as it was solely
the negligence of the spouses Saligumba's counsel by failing to inform the
court of the death of his client. Hence this present petition filed by the
siblings Saligumba.
Heirs of Spouses Saligumbas: The 1987 decision should be rendered void
since there was no proper substitution of the deceased spouses
Saligumbas despite the trial court's knowledge that the deceased spouses
Saligumbas were no longer represented by counsel. Thus, they were
deprived of due process.
Moreover, since the trial court acknowledged in its ruling that the
lack of substitution was the fault of Atty. Miralles of the spouses
Saligumbas, thus, the 1987 decision has no legal effect because their
parents were not duly represented by the said counse. Further, they
contend that they have never taken part in the proceedings of the case
which was decided in 1987, therefore, [i]ts unfair to bind them in a
decision rendered against their deceased parents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the revival of judgment in this case was proper
considering that the defendants in the action for revival were not the
original contending party in the original case.
Held: Yes. "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 debtors 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."
In the instant case, the 1987 judgment of the RTC had been rendered
final and executory by the lapse of time with no motion for
reconsideration nor was an appeal having been filed. Furthermore, there
was no formal withdrawal received and approved by the court from Atty.
Miralles as the counsel of the spouses Saligumbas at that time, thus,
since there was no such formal withdrawal, he remained the counsel for
the spouses Saligumbas until the RTC rendered judgment. His acts bind
his clients and the latters successors-in-interest. Additionally, it was
shown on record that Eliseo Saligumba Jr.was also furnished copies of the
trial courts orders and notices. It is also clear that in the present case for
revival of judgment, the other petitioners have not shown much interest
in the case

It is also important to take note that the complaint filed at that time was
an action for quieting of title with damages which is an action involving
real property. It is an action that survives pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87
as the claim is not extinguished by the death of a party. And when a party
dies in an action that survives, Section 17 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules
of Court provides for the procedure, thus:
Section 17. Death of Party. - After a party dies and the claim is not
thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the
deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may
be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time,
the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a
legal representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the
court, and the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf
of the interest of the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring
such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as
costs. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the
deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs. (Emphasis supplied)
Under the express terms of Section 17, in case of death of a party, and
upon proper notice, it is the duty of the court to order the legal
representative or heir of the deceased to appear for the deceased. In the
instant case, it is true that the trial court, after receiving an informal
notice of death by the mere notation in the envelopes, failed to order the
appearance of the legal representative or heir of the deceased. There was
no court order for deceaseds legal representative or heir to appear, nor
did any such legal representative ever appear in court to be substituted
for the deceased. Neither did the respondent ever procure the
appointment of such legal representative, nor did the heirs ever asked to
be substituted