Necessarily included

The general rule is that a writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision to be executed. If the dispositive portion of a decision merely declares a party as the owner of the property and orders its re-conveyance, can the writ of execution cover the demolition of the improvements existing thereon? This is the question raised and answered in this case.

The case involved a 1,083 square meters parcel of land originally titled in the name of Francia under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1738. Francia was the grandmother of Yoly and Julie. The said OCT was cancelled and a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 11574 was issued in the name of Nario by virtue of a “Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa” dated February 2 and 13, 1967. Nario in turn subsequently transferred said property to Marta, Gracia and his four children, in whose names TCT Nos. 23150, 27151 and 42467 were issued

On January 17, 1984 however, Yoly and her husband filed an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Nario’s children, Marta and Gracia (defendants) for annulment of the “Bilihan” and all sales executed subsequent thereto, and recovery of ownership of said property with damages.

On December 30, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the “Bilihan” and all sales subsequent thereto as null and void ab initio; ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos. 23150, 27151 and 42467; declaring Yoly and Julie as owners thereof; and ordering defendants to re-convey to them said property.

This decision was affirmed successively by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. After finality, the RTC issued a writ of execution on Yoly’s motion. In compliance with said writ, new TCTs (Nos. 98649 and 98650) were issued in the names of Yoly and Julie.

On March 3, 1999, Yoly and Julie with their respective spouses filed with the RTC a motion to be restored in possession of subject property and to demolish the improvements thereon. This was opposed by the defendants. They argued that the demolition was not expressly ordained in the decision. Hence to effect the demolition, Yoly and Julie must file an ejectment case, they said. Being declared owner of the subject lot does not mean that Yoly and Julie are automatically entitled to the possession of all improvements thereon, they contended. Were they correct?

No. a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but extends as well to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto (Section 47 c, Rule 39, Rules of Court). A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. If the defendants refuse to surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party, the sheriff or other proper officer should oust him. No express order to this effect needs to be stated in the decision; nor is a categorical statement needed in the decision that in such event the sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to remove the improvements on the property if the defendants fail to do so within a reasonable period of time. The removal of improvements on the land under these circumstances is deemed read into the decision, subject only to the issuance of a special order by the court requiring such removal (Tumibay et.al. vs. Soro etc, et.al. G.R. 152016, April 13, 2010).

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]