see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/203241.pdf
"x x x.
The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an
action after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in.11 This
Court, however, allows exceptions when execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years. These exceptions have one common
denominator: the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.12 In Camacho v. Court of Appeals,13 we held that where the delays were occasioned by the judgment debtor’s own initiatives and for her advantage as well as beyond the judgment creditor’s control, the five-year period allowed for enforcement of the judgment by motion is deemed to have been effectively interrupted or suspended.
In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeks to enforce the
decision which became final and executory on 15 April 1994. This decision
orders Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of
RCBC. However, to evade his obligation to RCBC, Serra transferred the
property to his mother Ablao, who then transferred it to Liok. Serra’s action prompted RCBC to file the Annulment case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra for his own advantage.
Thus, the pendency of the Annulment case effectively suspended the five-year period to enforce through a motion the decision in the Specific Performance case. Since the decision in the Annulment case attained finality on 3 March 2009 and RCBC’s motion for execution was filed on 25 August 2011, RCBC’s motion is deemed filed within the five-year period for enforcement of a decision through a motion.
x x x."
