Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    Romualdez Vs Tiglao

    Uploaded by

    Jurico Alonzo
    Paz Romualdez and others sued Antonio Tiglao and his sureties, including Felisa Tiglao, in 1960 for unpaid rent and were awarded P22,000. In 1970, Romualdez sought to revive the judgment as it had not been satisfied. Felisa Tiglao had since died, so her estate was substituted. The estate argued the claim could not be pursued against it directly under the Rules of Court. However, the court held the original judgment had become stale after 5 years of non-execution, so it needed to be revived through an action before it could be presented as a claim against Felisa Tiglao's estate in the settlement proceedings. The revival suit's purpose

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Romualdez Vs Tiglao

    Uploaded by

    Jurico Alonzo
    142 views1 page
    Paz Romualdez and others sued Antonio Tiglao and his sureties, including Felisa Tiglao, in 1960 for unpaid rent and were awarded P22,000. In 1970, Romualdez sought to revive the judgment as it had not been satisfied. Felisa Tiglao had since died, so her estate was substituted. The estate argued the claim could not be pursued against it directly under the Rules of Court. However, the court held the original judgment had become stale after 5 years of non-execution, so it needed to be revived through an action before it could be presented as a claim against Felisa Tiglao's estate in the settlement proceedings. The revival suit's purpose

    Original Description:

    Special Proceedings Case Digest

    Original Title

    Romualdez vs Tiglao

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Paz Romualdez and others sued Antonio Tiglao and his sureties, including Felisa Tiglao, in 1960 for unpaid rent and were awarded P22,000. In 1970, Romualdez sought to revive the judgment as it had not been satisfied. Felisa Tiglao had since died, so her estate was substituted. The estate argued the claim could not be pursued against it directly under the Rules of Court. However, the court held the original judgment had become stale after 5 years of non-execution, so it needed to be revived through an action before it could be presented as a claim against Felisa Tiglao's estate in the settlement proceedings. The revival suit's purpose

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views1 page

    Romualdez Vs Tiglao

    Uploaded by

    Jurico Alonzo
    Paz Romualdez and others sued Antonio Tiglao and his sureties, including Felisa Tiglao, in 1960 for unpaid rent and were awarded P22,000. In 1970, Romualdez sought to revive the judgment as it had not been satisfied. Felisa Tiglao had since died, so her estate was substituted. The estate argued the claim could not be pursued against it directly under the Rules of Court. However, the court held the original judgment had become stale after 5 years of non-execution, so it needed to be revived through an action before it could be presented as a claim against Felisa Tiglao's estate in the settlement proceedings. The revival suit's purpose

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PAZ G. ROMUALDEZ, BELEN A.

    GUECO, assisted by her husband, JOSE TINSAY,


    and CATALINA A. GUECO, assisted by her husband JOSE SIOPONGCO vs. ANTONIO
    P. TIGLAO, ERNESTO TIGLAO, BERNARDO TIGLAO and JUANA TIGLAO,
    ESTATE OF FELISA TIGLAO
    G.R. No. L-51151 July 24, 1981
    ABAD SANTOS, J.
    Facts: Paz Romualdez and others sued Antonio Tiglao and his sureties (including Felisa Tiglao)
    in 1960 for the payment of unpaid rentals for the lease of a hacienda and its sugar quota. CFI Rizal
    decided in favor of Romualdez adjudging Tiglao et al liable for P22,000.
    A writ of attachment was issued but the judgment was not satisfied. Romualdez sought the revival
    of the judgment in 1970. When this was files, Felisa was already dead; therefore, her estate was
    made a defendant represented by the Special Administratrix Maningning Tiglao-Naguiat.
    Maningning filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that under Sec. 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court,
    "No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced
    against the executor or administrator.” The lower court nevertheless granted the revival. An appeal
    is taken by the estate of Felisa.
    Issue: Whether the action for revival was proper instead of presenting the claim in the Special
    Proceeding in the settlement of Felisa’s estate.
    Held: The original judgment which was rendered on May 31, 1960, has become stale because of
    its non-execution after the lapse of five years. (Sec. 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.) Accordingly,
    it cannot be presented against the Estate of Felisa Tiglao unless it is first revived by action. This is
    precisely why the appellees 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 the
    Court of First Instance of Rizal.

    You might also like