Tumibay v. Soro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an action for annulment and recovery of ownership with damages concerning a 1,083 square meter parcel of land. The land was originally titled in the name of Francisca Sacdal, grandmother to respondents Yolanda T. Soro and Julita T. Sta. Ana. The title was transferred to Narciso Tumibay via a deed of sale and subsequently to other petitioners. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the initial sale and all subsequent sales null and void, annulled the transfer certificates of title, declared Yolanda and Julita as sole heirs and owners, ordered the reconveyance of the property, and awarded damages. Procedural History: The RTC decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court. After the decision became final, the RTC issued a writ of execution, leading to the issuance of new titles in the names of Yolanda and Perlita. Subsequently, Yolanda and Perlita, with their spouses, filed a motion with the RTC for restoration of possession and demolition of improvements, citing Rule 39, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. The RTC denied this motion, stating the writ of execution must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision and cannot go beyond it. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The Petition: The CA reversed the RTC's order, declaring it void and directing the RTC to set a time for the petitioners to remove improvements. The petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the writ of execution should strictly conform to the dispositive portion of the decision, which did not expressly order the demolition of improvements. They contended that an ejectment case would be necessary for demolition and cited Nazareno v. Court of Appeals to support their position that ownership does not automatically grant possession of improvements.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it declared void the September 6, 1999 RTC Order denying the respondents’ motion to be restored to possession of the subject property and to demolish the improvements thereon. Whether the removal of improvements on a property subject of execution, when not expressly stated in the dispositive portion of the judgment, requires a separate ejectment case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals declaring void the September 6, 1999 RTC Order is affirmed. The RTC is directed to conduct a hearing with dispatch, in accordance with Section 10(d) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, with due notice to the parties involved. Treble costs are imposed against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred when it declared void the September 6, 1999 RTC Order: The Court reiterated the general rule that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the judgment, but clarified that a judgment extends to matters necessarily included or necessary thereto, as per Rule 39, Section 47(c) of the Rules of Court. The RTC's denial of the motion for demolition was an error because the right to possession, which includes the removal of improvements, is implicitly included in the judgment declaring ownership and ordering reconveyance. The petitioners misread the ruling in Nazareno v. Court of Appeals; adjudication of ownership includes the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of their rejected claim of ownership. The petitioners failed to prove any independent right to possess the improvements, thus, the respondents have the full right to possession, including the removal of improvements. On the issue of whether the removal of improvements requires a separate ejectment case: Rule 39, Section 10(c) and (d) provides the procedure for the execution of judgments for specific acts, including the delivery or restitution of real property and the removal of improvements. Section 10(d) states that improvements shall not be destroyed or removed except upon a special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the judgment obligor has failed to remove them within a reasonable time fixed by the court. A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is an order to place the prevailing party in possession. If the defendant refuses to surrender possession, the sheriff should oust them. The removal of improvements, if the defendant fails to remove them within a reasonable time, is deemed read into the decision, subject to a special order from the court. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the RTC should have proceeded with the hearing to determine the removal of improvements, rather than denying the motion outright.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution must conform to the dispositive portion of the judgment, but a judgment is not confined to what appears on its face; it extends to those necessarily included or necessary thereto. The removal of improvements on property subject of execution, when the judgment obligor fails to remove them within a reasonable time fixed by the court, is deemed read into the decision, subject only to the issuance of a special order by the court.