I will prove a more general proposition with a relaxed premise and a sharper conclusion.
Proposition: $H_1(x)\in C^1(R)$. $h_2(y)\in C(R)$ is a strictly increasing function, and $h_2(0)=0$. $\lim\sup_{x\to\infty}H_1(x)>\lim\inf_{x\to\infty} H_1(x)\ge 0=H_1(0)$. $\lim\sup_{x\to-\infty}H_1(x)>\lim\inf_{x\to-\infty} H_1(x)\ge 0=H_1(0)$. $h_1(x):=H_1'(x)$ is bounded. $g$ is a continuous strictly increasing function defined on all $R$ with $g(0)=0$. Consider
$$\begin{cases}
x' = h_2(y) \\
y' = -h_1(x)-g(y)
\end{cases}$$
For any initial condition, as $t\to\infty$, $y(t)\to0$; $x(t)$ is bounded and its set of accumulation points is nonempty, contained in the set of stationary points of $H_1(x)$ ($h_1(x)=0$) and is in fact a closed interval. If we further assume $h_1(x)=0$ only at isolated points, $x(t)$ to some stationary point of $H_1(x)$ where $X$ is the set of stationary points of $H_1$.
We need the following lemma.
Lemma: $f\in C(R)$, $f(0)=0$. $f(y)$ is positive away from $y=0$. $y:R^+\to R$ is differentiable and $|y'(t)|<M$.
$$\int_0^\infty f(y(t))<\infty.$$
Then $y(t)\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$.
Proof of the Lemma: Suppose the contrary. Without loss of generality, assume $y(t)$ has a positive accumulation point. That is $\exists y_0>0$ and $\{t_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ where $t_{n+1}-t_n\ge1 \ni |y(t_n)-4y_0|< y_0$. Since $y'(t)$ is bounded by $M$, $\forall n\in\mathbf N$ and $|t-t_n|<\frac{y_0}M$, we have $|y(t)-y(t_n)|< y_0$ implying $|y(t)-4y_0|< 2y_0$. Let $T:= \bigcup_n \big\{t\,\big|\,|t-t_n|< \frac{y_0}M\big\}$. $y(T)$ is contained in a compact set $Y:=\big\{y\,\big|\,|y-4y_0|\le2y_0\big\}$. The property of $f(y)$ implies that $f(y(T))>f_0:=\min_Yf(Y)>0$.
Let $l=\min\big(\frac12,\frac{y_0}M\big)$ Consider the integration of $f(y(t))$ over intervals $(t_n-l,t_n+l)$ over all $n$ which are all disjoint. We have
$$\int_0^\infty f(y(t))dt>\sum_{n=1}^\infty f_0 2l=\infty.$$
We have a contradiction.
Therefore, $y(t)\to0$ as $t\to\infty$, as desired.
QED
Proof of the Proposition: Define $H_2(y):=\int_0^y h_2(u)\,du$, $H(x,y) := H_1(x) + H_2(y)$ and $H(t):=H(x(t),y(t))$. We have
$$\dot H(t):=\frac{d}{dt}H(t)=-h_2(y(t))g(y(t)).$$
$H(x,y)\ge0$ for all $(x,y)$ and $\dot H<0, \forall y\ne0$ and $\dot H(t=0)=0$. So $H$ is a Lyapunov function. $H(t)$ decreases. Thus, together with $H_1$ being nonnegative,
$H_2(y(t))=H(t)-H_1(x(t))\le H(0),\,\forall t\ge0$. Because $H_2(-\infty)=H_2(\infty)=\infty$, $H_2(y)$ is bounded implies $|y|$ is bounded. Since $|g(y)|$ is continuous it is also bounded on the compact set defined by the bounded $|y|$. $|y'(t)|\le |H_1'(x(t))|+|g(y(t))|$ is also bounded since both terms on the right hand side are bounded.
Now, since $H(t)$ is non-increasing is bounded from below by $0$,
$$H(0)-H(\infty)=\int_0^\infty h_2(y(s))g(y(s))\,ds$$
is convergent. $h_2(y)g(y)$ strictly increases on $[0,\infty)$ and strictly decreases on $(-\infty,0]$, $h_2(y=0)g(y=0)=0$, since both $h_2(y)$ and $g(y)$ satisfy these conditions. Recall $|y'(t)|$ is bounded. As $t\to\infty$, by Lemma, $y(t)\to0$, consequently $H_2(y(t))\to0^+$ and $h_2(y(t))\to0$.
$H_1(x(t))$ converges as $t\to\infty$, since
$H(t=\infty)=H_1(x(t=\infty))+H_2(y(t=\infty))=H_1(x(t=\infty))$. $x(t)$ is bounded. Otherwise, since $H_1$ has distinct $\lim\sup$ and $\lim\inf$, $H_1(x(t))$ assumes all values of a nonempty interval and thus diverges as $t\to\infty$. We show $x(t)$ converges as $t\to\infty$ by contradiction. Suppose $x(t)$ has two distinct accumulation points $x_1 < x_2$. As $x(t)$ is continuous, it assumes all values in $(x_1,x_2)$ as $t\to\infty$. We have two cases. We show both are impossible.
1) $H_1(x_1)\ne H_1(x_2)$. $H_1(x(t))$ diverges.
2) $H_1(x_1)=H_2(x_2)$. That would mean $H_1(x)=H_1(x_1), \forall x\in [x_1,x_2]$. Otherwise, $\exists x_3\in (x_1,x_2)\ni H_1(x_3)\ne H_1(x_1)$ and as $x(t)$ is continuous, it assumes $x_3$ infinite times and $H_1(x(t))$ assumes $H_1(x_3)$ infinite times, as $t\to\infty$. That gives at least two distinct accumulation points to $H_1(x(t))$ making $H_1(x(t))$ diverge. However, that would entail $h_1(x)=0,\,\forall x\in[x_1,x_2]$ violating the premise that $h_1$ assumes $0$ only at isolated points.
Both cases lead to contradiction. So $x(t)$ converges as claimed.
Finally, we show the limit $x_\infty$ of $x(t)$ is a stationary point of $H_1$ or $h_1(x_\infty)=0$. Suppose the contrary that $h_1(x_\infty)\ne0$. Assume without loss of generality that $h_1(x_infty)>0$. For an arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$ and sufficiently large $T$, we have $y(T)>-\epsilon$, and $\forall t>T$, the equation of motion gives
$$y'(t)=h_1(x(t))-g(y(t))>(h_1(x_\infty)-\epsilon)-\epsilon>0,$$
implying
$$y(t)>-\epsilon+(h_1(x_\infty)-2\epsilon)(t-T)$$
making $y(t)\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$, a contradiction.
So far, we have proved all the results we set out to prove.
QED