G.R. No. 116417; October 18, 2000
Alberto Maglasang, Jr., petitioner, vs. Hon. Mercedes Gozo Dadole, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cebu, Branch 28, Mandaue City, and Consuelo Q. Pabroa, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto Maglasang, Jr. filed a petition to cancel a permanent lien of a right of way annotated on his land title. Respondent Consuelo Q. Pabroa opposed, asserting the right of way was the only access for adjoining landowners to the national highway. The trial court denied the petition for cancellation, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately by the Supreme Court, becoming final on November 13, 1991. Subsequently, respondent Pabroa moved for execution, alleging that while awaiting enforcement, Maglasang constructed a concrete hollow block fence obstructing the two-meter right of way.
The trial court appointed commissioners to conduct ocular inspections and relocation surveys. The commissioner’s reports confirmed that a structure built by Maglasang obstructed the established right of way. Over Maglasang’s objections, the trial court issued an order on July 22, 1994, approving the commissioner’s report and ordering the demolition of the obstructing structure.

ISSUE

Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the July 22, 1994 order, which allegedly modified a final and executory order dated October 2, 1989?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which was not present. The final October 2, 1989 order definitively established the existence and necessity of the easement of right of way over Maglasang’s property. The subsequent July 22, 1994 order did not amend or alter the substance of this final judgment.
The legal logic is that the later order was merely an implementary or incidental order necessary for the execution of the final judgment. The appointment of commissioners and the conduct of surveys were proper steps to ascertain the factual situation on the ground and to determine if the right of way was being rendered ineffectual. Since the surveys confirmed an obstruction, the order for demolition was a logical and necessary enforcement measure to give effect to the final judgment recognizing the right of way. The court’s action was within its jurisdiction to execute its final decision and ensure the efficacy of the established easement. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.