Vicente v. Acil Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Acil Corporation (Acil) acquired Lot 297. Petitioner Warlito C. Vicente (Vicente) acquired Lot 10375, adjacent to Lot 297. Acil filed a complaint against Vicente, alleging that Lot 10375 was formed by accretion to Lot 297 and that Vicente had encroached upon a portion of Lot 297. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Acil's complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld Vicente's ownership of Lot 10375 but ruled that he was liable for encroaching upon approximately 4,237 square meters of Lot 297, ordering him to vacate and deliver possession of the encroached portion. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied their petitions, and the CA's decision became final and executory. The Petition: Acil moved for the execution of the CA's decision. The RTC issued a Writ of Execution. Vicente filed a motion to quash the writ, arguing it did not conform to the CA's decision and that no prior survey had been conducted to determine the encroached portion. Acil agreed the writ was at variance and prayed for its amendment. The RTC denied Vicente's motion to quash, ruling there was no need for a surveyor as the CA had already determined the encroached area and identified it in a sketch plan (Exhibit "G-4"). The RTC ordered the issuance of a new writ of execution. Vicente petitioned the CA for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA affirmed the RTC's order, finding no need for a surveyor. Vicente's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of a surveyor and ordering the execution of the final judgment based on existing records. Whether the issuance of a new writ of execution was the proper remedy for a previously defective writ.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated September 30, 2010 and the Resolution dated March 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03508-MIN are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of a surveyor. The Court found that the Court of Appeals (CA), in its September 12, 2003 Decision, had already specifically determined the extent of the encroachment to be approximately 4,237 square meters. Furthermore, the CA had explicitly identified the illegally occupied area by referring to the shaded portion in Exhibit 'G-4', which was the sketch plan prepared by Engr. Vedua. Because the final and executory judgment already defined the technical basis for the delivery of possession, there was no reasonable basis to conduct a new survey. The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final, the execution is a ministerial duty that cannot be frustrated by a party's insistence on re-litigating factual findings regarding the area of encroachment. Therefore, the RTC's refusal to appoint a new surveyor was consistent with the goal of ending litigation. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the RTC acted correctly in ordering the issuance of a new writ of execution that strictly conformed to the dispositive portion of the CA’s 2003 Decision. While the initial writ issued on May 23, 2008, was wayward and defective because it ordered a 'levy' instead of a 'delivery of possession,' the RTC effectively corrected this error in its January 14, 2010 Order. Applying the rule from Nazareno v. CA, the Court reiterated that a writ of execution must conform to the judgment to be executed. By quoting the CA's dispositive portion in the new order of execution, the RTC ensured the implementation adhered to the 'Language of the Law.' The Court criticized Vicente's attempts to use the defect in the first writ as a tool for delay, noting that he failed to raise the defect timely in his initial certiorari petition. The right of the winning party to enjoy the satisfaction of a final judgment, which is the 'life of the law,' must be protected against protraction and dilatory tactics.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution must conform to the judgment to be executed. Once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment or order, and execution cannot be frustrated except for serious reasons demanded by justice and equity.