GR L 23247; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23247 January 31, 1969
ALIPIO N. CASILAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CONCEPCION KAPUNAN DE SALCEDO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
In 1946, plaintiff-appellant Alipio N. Casilan filed a complaint to recover title and possession of a parcel of land in Tacloban City. The land was originally owned by spouses Ruperto Kapunan and Iluminada Fernandez, who donated it to their daughter, defendant-appellee Concepcion Kapunan de Salcedo, on October 2, 1935. On December 23, 1939, Concepcion donated the land to her daughter, Marita Antonia Salcedo. On November 4, 1944, Concepcion and Alipio executed a deed of conditional sale for the land for P6,500.00, with Alipio paying P2,000.00 then and the balance of P4,500.00 on June 14, 1945. The Court of First Instance of Leyte dismissed Alipio’s complaint and declared the sale null and void. The Court of Appeals reversed this, declaring Alipio the owner. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, declaring the two donations valid and the sale from Concepcion to Alipio null and void. The Supreme Court’s decision included the statement: “Said respondent, however, may still recover what he has paid under the equitable principle that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.” The dispositive portion of the decision only reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the sale null and void. This decision became final. Alipio then filed a motion in the trial court for a writ of execution to recover the P6,500.00 plus interest from Concepcion, based on the Supreme Court’s aforementioned statement. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the statement was part of the opinion, not the dispositive judgment, and suggested a separate action for recovery. Alipio appealed this denial.
ISSUE
Whether the statement in the Supreme Court’s decision that “Said respondent, however, may still recover what he has paid under the equitable principle that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another” may serve as a basis for the lower court to issue a writ of execution against the properties of defendant Concepcion Kapunan de Salcedo for the recovery of the purchase price paid.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte denying the motion for a writ of execution. The Court held that the statement relied upon by appellant is part of the opinion or conclusions of the Court and does not constitute the judgment itself. The Court distinguished between an opinion and a judgment, noting that an opinion is the informal expression of the court’s views and cannot prevail against its final order or decision. The Court reiterated the settled rule that only what is ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of a decision can be the subject of execution. Since the dispositive portion of the Supreme Court’s prior decision only declared the sale null and void and did not order Concepcion to pay or return the purchase price to Alipio, the lower court correctly denied the motion for execution. The proper recourse for Alipio to recover the sum paid is to institute a separate action, as suggested by the lower court.