G.R. No. 112518 . April 21, 1995.
HEIRS OF CARLOS CABALLERO, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC of Quezon City, Br. 86 and JOSE RABOT, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land in Quezon City originally awarded by the PHHC to Manuel Bienvenido, who sold his rights to Carlos Caballero. Caballero obtained a title after full payment. However, Jose Rabot and others contested the award, claiming a preferential right as occupants. The trial court initially ordered the lot awarded to the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals modified this, upholding only Rabot’s claim to one-third. Caballero appealed to the Supreme Court.
In G.R. No. 59888 , the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals regarding Rabot. It ruled that Rabot had no preferential right to purchase the lot as the property was sold by PHHC for project financing and, even if applicable, Rabot failed to meet the minimum income requirement. The Court set aside the award to Rabot, affirmed the dismissal of the claims of the other plaintiffs, and declared petitioners as the owners of the entire lot. This decision became final.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to issue an order for the eviction of respondent Jose Rabot from the subject property after the Supreme Court’s final decision declaring petitioners as the owners.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic is clear: once a final judgment declares title in favor of a party, that party is entitled to all rights of ownership, including possession. The Court’s prior decision in G.R. No. 59888 categorically declared petitioners as the owners and found Rabot to be a squatter without any right. Therefore, the necessary implication of such a declaratory judgment is the right to possess the property and the correlative duty of the unlawful occupant to vacate.
Upon remand, the trial court’s duty was purely ministerial—to execute the final judgment. It had no discretion to modify, reverse, or refuse its implementation. By refusing to order Rabot’s eviction on the ground that the Supreme Court’s dispositive portion was silent on the matter, the respondent judge effectively negated the conclusive effects of the final judgment, which constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that whatever is necessary to carry out the decision should be ordered. Thus, the respondent court was directed to immediately implement the decision and issue a writ of possession in favor of petitioners.