G.R. Nos. 54348-49 October 17, 1990
MARIANO REAS, petitioner, vs. RUFINO BONIFE and HON. AUXENCIO DACUYCUY, Presiding Judge of Branch IV, C.F.I., Candahug Palo, Leyte, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves parcels of land in the Nalibunan Estate, originally owned by spouses Silvestre Alvero and Gertrudes Regis. Upon their death, the estate was inherited by their children Feliciana, Romana, Cipriana, and Juan. Petitioner Mariano Reas inherited from his mother Feliciana, while private respondent Rufino Bonife inherited from his mother Romana. A series of litigations arose concerning the shares of the childless siblings Juan and Cipriana among their collateral heirs, including Reas and Bonife. Critical confusion stemmed from the parties’ consistent failure to inform the lower courts that the entire Nalibunan Estate comprised lands beyond those described in Plan Psu-73638 (32,785 sqm), totaling approximately 43,415 sqm.
In Civil Case No. 2729, the Court of Appeals, in a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-28337), ruled that Cipriana’s share was acquired by Alejandra Alvero and, upon her death, was possessed and partitioned among Reas, Rufino Alvero, and Norberto Alvero, who acquired their portions by acquisitive prescription. The same decision noted Juan’s share was partitioned among his four nephews: Reas, Bonife, Rufino Alvero, and Norberto Alvero. Subsequently, in Civil Case No. 5005, Bonife sued Reas to recover his inherited share from Juan. The trial court, operating under the mistaken belief that Plan Psu-73638 represented the entire estate, declared Bonife owner of 1/4 of Juan’s share and ordered Reas to vacate a portion, pegging the area at “2,500 square meters, more or less,” based on a tax declaration. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing orders for execution that adjusted the specific area of land awarded to private respondent Bonife, thereby allegedly amending a final and executory judgment?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The orders of execution did not alter the substance of the final judgments but were merely legitimate implementations thereof. Regarding Cipriana’s share, the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No. 2729 had definitively adjudicated specific portions to the defendants, including Reas and Rufino Alvero. The subsequent order allocating 8,196 sqm (half of Cipriana’s share) to Rufino Alvero was a direct execution of that affirmed decision, not an amendment.
Concerning Juan’s share, the core adjudication in Civil Case No. 5005 was Bonife’s entitlement to one-fourth of it. The trial court’s specification of “2,500 square meters, more or less” was explicitly based on a prima facie tax declaration and included the qualifying phrase “more or less,” precisely acknowledging that the actual area might differ. When a relocation survey later correctly established the full extent of Juan’s land, the corresponding one-fourth share mathematically increased to 4,099 sqm. This adjustment was a mere computational correction to effectuate the declared 1/4 proportional share, not a substantive change to the judgment. Therefore, the execution orders were valid implementations, not alterations, of final decisions. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.