Codilla v. Estenzo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Lot 657 of the Ormoc Cadastre, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5041. The title reflects co-ownership, with Rustico Capahi holding a ½ share and Ramon Codilla and Guillermo Codilla each holding a ¼ share. A residential commercial building is erected on the portion allocated to Ramon and Guillermo. Ramon Codilla executed a "Contract of Mortgage with Option to Purchase" in favor of Rustico Capahi, mortgaging his share of the property and the building thereon, and granting Capahi the option to purchase it. Ramon later sold his mortgaged property to his brother, Guillermo Codilla. 2. Procedural History: Ramon Codilla filed an action for redemption of mortgage, which was initially ruled in favor of Guillermo Codilla regarding the sale. However, on appeal (CA-G.R. No. 48834-R), the Court of Appeals reversed this, holding that the sale to Guillermo could not defeat Capahi's option to purchase and ordering Ramon to execute a deed of sale to Capahi. This decision became final after this Court denied a petition for review. A writ of execution was issued, and Ramon executed a deed of sale to Capahi, but it did not explicitly include the building. Capahi filed an opposition and motion for an alias writ of execution, seeking the inclusion of the building and Capahi's possession. The lower court granted this, ordering the Clerk of Court to execute a deed of conveyance including the building and placing Capahi in possession. The Codilla brothers filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-08135), arguing the order varied the original judgment. This petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's order, interpreting its prior decision to include the building and possession. 3. The Petition: Petitioners, Ramon and Guillermo Codilla, seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the lower court's order, arguing it varied the dispositive portion of the final judgment by including the placing of respondent Rustico Capahi in 'possession and ownership' of the property and its improvements, which they claim was not directed by the original decision. They also argue that the order effectively directed a partition of the property, which was not an issue in the original case, and that the sheriff arbitrarily placed Capahi in possession, depriving them of property without due process. They further argue that the doctrines cited by the Court of Appeals are inapplicable and that the case of Talens vs. Garcia and Jabon vs. Alo should have been applied. The core of their argument is that the 207 square-meter property and the building thereon remain in their undivided co-ownership, and Capahi cannot be placed in possession of a specific portion until partition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge's Order dated May 31, 1978, varied or amended the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' final decision in CA-G.R. No. 48834-R by including the residential building and directing the placing of respondent Rustico Capahi in possession and ownership. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the respondent Judge's order, particularly concerning the inclusion of the building and the delivery of possession and ownership. Whether the Sheriff, by placing Rustico Capahi in possession of a specific portion of the property with improvements, arbitrarily partitioned the property and deprived petitioners of property without due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Order of the respondent Judge, dated May 31, 1978, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, which directed the delivery of ownership and possession to respondent Rustico Capahi over an area consisting of 103.5 square meters of the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5041, together with the building thereon. This affirmation is without prejudice to any legal redemption rights Guillermo Codilla may be awarded in CA-G.R. No. 64576.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge's Order varied the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' decision: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge's Order did not vary the dispositive portion of the final judgment. The Court reiterated that a judgment is not confined to what appears on its face but includes all that is necessarily included or necessary thereto. The Court cited Perez v. Evite and Confesor v. Pelayo, stating that the directive to execute a deed of sale necessarily involves ownership and possession as attributes thereof. Therefore, even without a special pronouncement regarding delivery of ownership and possession, an execution may be issued to effect such delivery to carry into full effect the judgment. The inclusion of the building was also deemed consistent with the original contract and the Court of Appeals' decision, which referred to the "property in question" as that subject to the mortgage with option to purchase, explicitly including the "residential building thereon" in paragraph 3-a of the contract and in Ramon Codilla's complaint. On the issue of the inclusion of the building and the delivery of possession and ownership: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' interpretation that its previous decision in CA-G.R. No. 48834-R, by referring to the "property in question" and the contract (Exhibit '2'), implicitly included the residential building. The Court emphasized that to exclude the building would be to amend or modify a final and executory decision. Furthermore, the Court found that the directive to execute a deed of sale necessarily implies the conveyance of ownership and possession, as these are fundamental attributes of ownership. The respondent Judge's order to place Rustico Capahi in possession and ownership was thus a necessary step to fully enforce the judgment. On the issue of arbitrary partition and deprivation of property without due process: The Court found no arbitrary partition. It noted that the issue of co-ownership and the existence of a physical separation between Ramon's and Guillermo's portions was already raised and passed upon in the Mortgage Redemption Case. Rustico denied the claim of co-ownership, citing evidence presented in the lower courts that indicated a segregation of portions. The Court stated that whether the sale was of a specific divided portion or an undivided participation, the ownership and possession of one-half of Lot "B" and the building could be delivered to Rustico. The pendency of the legal redemption case (CA-G.R. No. 64576) concerning Guillermo's right to redeem was acknowledged but deemed not to deter the execution of the final judgment in the mortgage redemption case. The Court clarified that the execution of the judgment was without prejudice to any legal redemption rights Guillermo might ultimately be awarded.
Main Doctrine
The execution of a deed of sale necessarily includes the delivery of possession and ownership of the property, as these are inherent attributes of ownership, and the execution court may issue orders to effect such delivery to fully carry into effect the judgment.