Tiro v. Pabayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of a parcel of land, Lot 26 of the Subdivision Plan Psd-73564. The plaintiffs, Leopoldo Pabayo and his co-heirs, claimed ownership based on a deed of sale from 1941 and a subsequent donation. They sought to annul a contract of purchase and sale executed by Vitaliana Gamboa de Llarenas in favor of Forma Real Estate Subdivision and Management in 1965, alleging fraud and deceit. Procedural History: The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Oriental seeking annulment of the sale and declaration of ownership. The CFI dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim. This decision was affirmed in its entirety by the Court of Appeals. Following the finality of the judgment, the defendant, Forma Real Estate Subdivision and Management, moved for execution to gain possession of the property. The CFI granted this motion. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the CFI abused its discretion by ordering execution for possession, as the original judgment only dismissed the claims and did not explicitly award possession. The Petition: This case is a petition for certiorari, treated as such under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners, the judge and the defendant from the CFI, contend that the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the writ of execution for possession. They argue that the cases cited by the Court of Appeals (Talens vs. Garcia and Jabon vs. Alo) are inapplicable as there is no landlord-tenant relationship, and that possession is a necessary consequence of the adjudication of ownership to the defendant. They rely on the principle that a judgment includes what is necessarily included or necessary thereto, as established in Section 45 of Rule 39 (now Section 49(c)), and cite Perez vs. Evite to support the idea that possession should be delivered when the possessor has no valid right to remain.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the trial court's orders for the issuance of a writ of execution for possession null and void. Whether the delivery of possession is necessarily included in a judgment that adjudicates ownership, even if not explicitly stated in the dispositive portion.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is annulled and set aside. The orders of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental directing the Sheriff to place Forma Real Estate Subdivision and Management in possession of the land are declared valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the trial court's orders for the issuance of a writ of execution for possession null and void: The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, holding that the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion. The Court clarified that the doctrine enunciated in Talens vs. Garcia and Jabon vs. Alo, which requires explicit adjudication of possession, may not be invoked when the actual possessor has no valid right to continue possession. In this case, the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the genuineness of the deed of sale, rendering it worthless. Consequently, their claim of ownership and right to possess the property was rejected. On the issue of whether the delivery of possession is necessarily included in a judgment that adjudicates ownership, even if not explicitly stated in the dispositive portion: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, citing Section 45 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (now Section 49(c) of Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court). This provision states that a judgment is not confined to what appears on its face but also includes what is necessarily included or necessary thereto. The Court reasoned that in a land registration case where ownership is adjudged, a writ of demolition to remove improvements is allowed as it is necessarily included. Similarly, when the plaintiffs' claim of ownership, which was the basis for their possession, was rejected, they had no right to remain on the land. Therefore, the delivery of possession to the rightful owner, Forma Real Estate Subdivision and Management, was considered necessarily included in the judgment adjudicating ownership to Forma. The Court emphasized that requiring Forma to file a new litigation to obtain possession would defeat the ends of justice.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution for the delivery of possession of a property is considered necessarily included in a judgment that adjudicates ownership, even if not explicitly stated in the dispositive portion, when the party in possession has no other right to retain the property after their claim of ownership has been rejected.