Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82925:56805&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:58:41+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 180098, April 02, 2014 - OFELIA FAUNI REYES AND NOEL FAUNI REYES, Petitioners, v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondent.
OFELIA FAUNI REYES AND NOEL FAUNI REYES, Petitioners, v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondent.
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari 1 filed by petitioners Ofelia Fauni Reyes and Noel Fauni Reyes (the petitioners) to challenge the decision2 dated April 16, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 94994.
In a decision dated March 8, 2006, the RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The RTC gave probative value to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) officials’ testimonies that the charred body was Joseph’s. The RTC also observed that Insular Life failed to present sufficient evidence that Joseph had knowledge of the threat to his life and of the subsistence of other life insurance policies on September 16, 1998. The RTC further relied on the admission of Mr. Jose Odena, Insular Life’s lay underwriter, that it was the soliciting agent who filled out the information on Joseph’s annual income in the Agent’s Confidential Report.
The case comes to us with the sole issue of whether the petitioners are entitled to execution pending appeal.
the entry of judgment in G.R. No.
In the present case, the issue of the propriety of discretionary execution has already been rendered moot and academic with our denial of Insular Life’s petition and issuance of the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 189605. This means that our affirmation of the lower courts’ rulings on the main case has become final and executory. Consequently, the issue of whether the petitioners are entitled to discretionary execution pending appeal no longer presents any justiciable controversy. It becomes the RTC’s ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution in favor of the petitioners who are now entitled to execution as a matter of right.
In relation to this, Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry. A judgment may also be enforced by action after the lapse of five years and before it is barred by the statute of limitations. The revived judgment may then be enforced by motion within five years from the date of its entry.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for being moot and academic. No costs.
Sereno,* C.J., Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, per Raffle dated March 31, 2014.
1 Dated October 30, 2007 and filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 3–131.
2 Id. at 132–141; penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas–Bernabe (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Rosmari D. Carandang.
7Rollo in G.R. No. 189605, p. 24.
8Rollo, p. 135; The other life insurance companies are Ayala Life Insurance Corp., Philam Life Insurance Corp., and Philippines Axa Life Insurance Corp.
16 Id. at Annex A.
17Rollo in G.R. No. 189605, pp. 80–139.
20Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193415, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 262–263.
21 Sarmiento v. Magsino, G.R. No. 193000, October 16, 2013; Korea Exchange Bank v. Judge Gonzales, 520 Phil. 691, 701 (2006); Desaville, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 480 Phil. 22, 26–27 (2004); Royal Cargo Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 465 Phil. 719–720, 725 (2004).
22Calderon v. Roxas, G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 330–331, 338; and Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 636–637, 648–649.
23 RULES OF COURT, Rule 36, Section 2; RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Section 1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.