G.R. No. 78684 . April 12, 1989.
LUIS SUSON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON AM. TORRES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch VI, Cebu City, and SPOUSES ISAAC AND LEONCIA SOCO, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from Civil Case No. R-14351, a complaint for recovery of a portion of Lot 2051 and quieting of title, wherein the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, Branch VI, ruled in favor of the spouses Isaac and Leoncia Soco. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final. During execution, the private respondents moved for a writ of demolition. It was then discovered that petitioner Luis Suson, who was not a party to the original case, had a house on the subject lot. The RTC ordered Suson to file a complaint in intervention within ten days. Upon his failure to do so, the court issued an order on October 20, 1982, directing him to demolish his house.
Subsequently, Suson filed a separate complaint for quieting of title (Civil Case No. R-22651) before another branch of the RTC in Cebu, claiming ownership over a portion of the same lot. Meanwhile, the orders for demolition in the first case were affirmed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 74205 . The Supreme Court remanded the case for execution. The RTC in the first case then issued an alias writ of execution, but the RTC branch handling Suson’s separate case issued a restraining order against its enforcement. That separate complaint was later dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC, Branch VI, acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the demolition order against Luis Suson, who was not an original party to Civil Case No. R-14351.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The demolition order was issued in the context of executing a final and executory judgment. The court, upon learning of Suson’s claim during the hearing on the motion for demolition, afforded him due process by ordering him to intervene. This opportunity was given to guide the court in properly disposing of the motion in light of his alleged interest. By ignoring this chance to present his claim, Suson cannot later allege a denial of due process. Execution is a mere implementation of a final judgment, and the court has the inherent power to enforce its decisions and orders. The separate action filed by Suson (Civil Case No. R-22651) was correctly dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The parties, subject matter (Lot 2051), and causes of action in both cases are substantially identical. A party cannot evade the effects of a final judgment by filing a new action presenting the same essential claims under a different form. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the assailed orders were affirmed.