GR 131641; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131641 February 23, 2000
NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NAPOLEON V. DILAG, Presiding Judge, RTC-Cavite, Branch XV, ROMEO P. NAZARENO and ELIZA NAZARENO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Natividad Nazareno filed a complaint for annulment of a simulated deed of absolute sale over a parcel of land in Naic, Cavite, which she executed in favor of her brother Romeo and his wife Eliza. The Court of Appeals ultimately declared the deed and the resulting title null and void, ordering the restoration of Natividad’s original certificate of title. This decision became final. Natividad then moved for the issuance of a writ of execution and a writ of possession. The trial court granted the writ of execution but denied the writ of possession, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition.
The appellate court held that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the final judgment. The final decision only nullified the sale and title and ordered the restoration of Natividad’s title; it did not order the delivery of possession. The court further ruled that a writ of possession is generally improper in an action for annulment of a private sale, as it is typically limited to land registration, foreclosure, or execution sales. While ownership generally includes possession, an exception exists if the actual possessor shows a valid right to remain.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Natividad Nazareno following the final judgment declaring her the rightful owner of the subject lot.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal principle is that a writ of execution cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the final judgment it seeks to enforce. The dispositive portion of the final decision did not order the delivery of possession to Natividad; it only nullified the instruments and restored her title. Issuing a writ of possession would therefore be invalid, as it would enforce a relief not granted.
Furthermore, while adjudication of ownership normally includes the right to possession, this is not absolute. An exception applies where the actual possessor, like the respondent spouses, may have a separate, valid claim to the property or its improvements. Here, the ownership and possession of the Naic Cinema built on the lot were never litigated in the annulment case. Natividad herself admitted the cinema belonged to their father’s estate, while the spouses asserted ownership over it. Therefore, possession of the cinema cannot be wrested via a writ of possession in this proceeding. A separate action is required to determine the rights over the improvement. Granting the writ under these circumstances would deprive the spouses of property without due process.