G.R. No. 131913 , June 8, 2007
SPOUSES DELIO GUINYAWAN and EMILIA GUINYAWAN, Petitioners, vs. LOUISA AYOGAT, ANGEL AYOGAT, HON. ARTEMIO B. MARRERO, Presiding Judge of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court, Bontoc, Mountain Province, ATTY. MARLYN C. WILLIE, Clerk of Court V, Branch 36, Regional Trial Court, Bontoc, Mountain Province, and the EX-OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF MOUNTAIN PROVINCE, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action for recovery of possession filed by respondents Spouses Ayogat against petitioners Spouses Guinyawan. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision in 1992 declaring the Ayogats as having legal title and possession rights over the disputed property and ordering the Guinyawans to vacate. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified this decision in 1994, declaring the land as public land but affirming the Ayogats’ right of possession. The Supreme Court denied the Guinyawans’ petition, and the judgment became final in 1994. Subsequent petitions for annulment of judgment were also dismissed.
Years later, the Ayogats filed a Motion for Execution. The RTC set the hearing. The Guinyawans’ counsel, receiving notice late, sought a resetting via telegram and filed a formal motion. The RTC denied the resetting, proceeded with the ex parte hearing, and subsequently issued orders granting execution and a corresponding writ. The Guinyawans filed multiple motions for reconsideration and a motion to quash the writ, all of which were denied by the RTC. The writ was partially enforced, prompting the Guinyawans to file the instant Petition for Certiorari, alleging denial of due process and an invalid writ that varied the final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders and the writ of execution, thereby denying petitioners due process, and whether the writ of execution varied the terms of the final and executory judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On procedural due process, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The right to be heard was not violated. The Guinyawans were afforded opportunity; they filed an opposition to the motion for execution and multiple motions for reconsideration, all of which were duly considered and denied by the RTC. The denial of a resetting, under the circumstances, was within the court’s discretion and did not equate to a deprivation of due process, as their substantive arguments were eventually heard and resolved.
On the substantive claim, the Court held the writ of execution did not alter the final judgment. The CA-modified decision vested only a right of possession in the Ayogats, as the land was declared public. The writ meticulously ordered the sheriff to place the Ayogats in possession of the specific area identified in the RTC decision, without awarding ownership. It expressly limited execution to implementing the possession aspect of the adjudged right. Therefore, the writ was a faithful enforcement of the final judgment’s dispositive portion and did not constitute a variance or expansion thereof. The respondent judge did not act capriciously or whimsically.