Parties in an Action for Revival of Judgment
Saligumba v. Palanog: "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 debtor's 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 [in this case, the original action for partition], 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."
With the foregoing in mind, it is understandable that there would be instances where the parties in the original case and in the subsequent action for revival of judgment would not be exactly the same. The mere fact that the names appearing as parties in the complaint for revival of judgment are different from the names of the parties in the original case would not necessarily mean that they are not the real parties-in-interest. What is important is that, as provided in Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, they are "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Definitely, as the prevailing parties in the previous case for partition, the plaintiffs in the case for revival of judgment would be benefited by the enforcement of the decision in the partition case. (Clidorio v. Almanzar).
