GR L 5094; (August, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5094; August 7, 1952
JUAN JABON, ALEJANDRO DIGAL, CANDIDO JABON, and PAULINO JABON, petitioners, vs. HIPOLITO ALO, Judge of First Instance of Bohol, and SATURNINO alias CATALINO YTEM, respondents.
FACTS
Saturnino Ytem filed an action against Juan Jabon and others to be declared owner of a parcel of land. The defendants prayed that Juan Jabon be declared owner. On March 13, 1950, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Juan Jabon owner of a specific portion and declaring the rest of the land as belonging exclusively to the plaintiff, without any order for delivery of possession. This decision became final. A writ of execution was later issued, but the defendants resisted. Judge Jose Veluz denied a motion for contempt, ruling the writ was not in accordance with the dispositive part of the decision. Over a year after the decision became final, plaintiff moved to amend the dispositive part to include an order for defendants to vacate and deliver possession. Respondent Judge Hipolito Alo granted the motion and issued the order on August 11, 1951. The defendants (petitioners) now seek to nullify this order via certiorari, contending the judge acted in excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court, after its judgment declaring ownership had become final and executory, could amend it by adding a directive for the delivery of possession and ejectment of the defendants.
RULING
No. The petition is granted. The order dated August 11, 1951, is null and void, having been issued in excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a judgment declaring ownership does not necessarily include possession as a necessary incident. Ownership is different from possession; a person declared owner may not be entitled to possession if the possessor has other rights (e.g., as a lessee, tenant, or with rights to improvements). The Court cited the precedent of Talens vs. Garcia, where it was held that a judgment absolving a defendant/declaring ownership did not include an order for delivery of possession. Since the original decision contained only a declaration of ownership and no other relief, and it had become final over a year prior, it could not be amended to add the relief of possession. The preliminary injunction issued was declared final. (Separate concurring and dissenting opinions are noted but not part of the main ruling.)