G.R. No. L-44696 October 18, 1988
JULIAN ESPIRITU, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, and DAVID MIRANDA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a land registration application filed by petitioner Julian Espiritu. Respondent David Miranda opposed, claiming Espiritu’s claimed area encroached upon his own land, Lot 2 of Plan Psu-206227. The Court of First Instance initially favored Espiritu, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court declared Miranda the true owner of Lot 2 and entitled to its registration. The CA decision became final after Espiritu failed to perfect his appeal. Subsequently, Miranda moved for a writ of possession and later a writ of demolition, alleging that during the litigation, improvements made to houses by Espiritu’s children had encroached upon his Lot 2.
Espiritu opposed the demolition, arguing an inconsistency between the dispositive portion of the CA decision, which awarded Lot 2 to Miranda, and certain statements in its body suggesting the lots did not overlap and that Espiritu owned the land where his children’s houses stood. The Trial Court granted the writ of demolition, contingent on a verification that the structures indeed encroached upon Lot 2, and denied Espiritu’s motion for reconsideration and attempted appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of demolition based on the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals, notwithstanding petitioner’s claim of inconsistency between the decision’s body and its dispositive portion.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that the claimed inconsistency was non-existent. The CA decision’s body established the identities and boundaries of the respective lots, finding no overlap, and its dispositive portion definitively awarded ownership of Lot 2 to Miranda. There was no contradiction, as the dispositive portion merely implemented the factual findings. Crucially, the Court emphasized the settled doctrine that the dispositive portion of a final judgment controls for purposes of execution. Any perceived ambiguity between the body and the dispositive part must be resolved in favor of the dispositive portion. Furthermore, Espiritu failed to avail of the remedy of seeking clarification or correction from the Court of Appeals before the judgment attained finality. The Trial Court’s order was correct, as it merely directed the sheriff to execute the final judgment by determining if the houses encroached upon the adjudicated Lot 2, thereby giving full effect to the CA’s ruling. The orders were in strict accord with the final judgment and applicable precedent.