G.R. No. 137431; September 7, 2000
EDGARDO SANTOS, represented by his attorney-in-fact ROMEO L. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JESUS DIAZ, ROBERTO ONG and AUGUSTO AQUINO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgardo Santos was the landowner in an agrarian case for determination of just compensation for properties taken under P.D. No. 27. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as an Agrarian Court, rendered a judgment fixing just compensation at P49,241,876.00. After deducting a preliminary valuation, the dispositive portion ordered respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay the balance of P45,698,805.34 “in the manner provided by R.A. 6657.” The Supreme Court dismissed LBP’s appeal, and the RTC issued a writ of execution. LBP complied by releasing a portion in cash and the balance of P41,128,024.81 in Land Bank bonds.
Petitioner moved for an alias writ, arguing the payment should be in a specific proportion of cash and bonds, and later insisted the entire balance be paid in cash or certified check. The RTC initially ordered LBP to release the balance in cash. However, upon LBP’s motion for reconsideration, a new presiding judge issued an Order dated April 24, 1998, which computed the exact amounts payable in cash and bonds pursuant to Section 18 of R.A. 6657, resulting in a cash balance of P5,792,084.37 and a bond component of P35,336,840.16. Petitioner challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC Order dated April 24, 1998, which specified the payment of just compensation in specific amounts of cash and bonds, constituted an illegal amendment of the final and executory judgment that merely ordered payment “in the manner provided by R.A. 6657.”

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The RTC’s clarifying order did not illegally amend the final judgment. The original decision explicitly mandated payment “in the manner provided by R.A. 6657.” Section 18 of R.A. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) expressly provides that just compensation shall be paid partly in cash and partly in bonds. Therefore, the general directive in the dispositive portion inherently incorporated this statutory payment scheme. The subsequent order issued during execution proceedings, which merely computed the specific cash and bond allocations as prescribed by law, was a legitimate clarification to render the judgment executory. It did not alter the essence of the decision but gave effect to its clear intent by applying the governing law. The court executing a judgment possesses the inherent power to clarify any ambiguity to ensure its proper implementation.