G.R. No. 149696 ; July 14, 2006
CARDINAL BUILDING OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. ASSET RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cardinal Building Owners Association, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money against its member, Benjamin Marual, for unpaid assessment dues. The parties entered into a Compromise Agreement, subsequently approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as a judgment, wherein Marual agreed to settle his monetary obligation through installment payments. The agreement stipulated that should Marual fail to make good on his postdated checks, petitioner would be entitled to execute the judgment for the full amount and, at its option, proceed with the extrajudicial enforcement of its lien under the Condominium Act. Marual defaulted, prompting petitioner to secure a writ of execution. During enforcement, petitioner discovered Marual’s condominium units had been foreclosed by a bank and subsequently sold to respondent Asset Recovery and Management Corporation.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Possession in the same RTC case. The RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of possession, allowing petitioner to repossess and lease the units for four years to recover Marual’s debt. Respondent challenged this RTC Order via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing it constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition and nullified the RTC’s Order, holding that the writ of possession improperly varied the compromise judgment. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the RTC’s Order granting a writ of possession to petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the judgment it seeks to enforce; it cannot vary the judgment’s terms or award relief different from or in excess of that adjudged. The compromise judgment, which the RTC approved, was essentially a judgment for a sum of money based on Marual’s monetary obligation. While the compromise agreement mentioned petitioner’s option to enforce its lien extrajudicially under the Condominium Act, the judgment itself did not order the delivery or restitution of specific property. Consequently, the proper remedy for enforcing a money judgment is a writ of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which may involve levy and sale of property, not a writ of possession. A writ of possession is a specific remedy for enforcing judgments directing the delivery or restitution of real property. The RTC’s issuance of a writ of possession, which effectively allowed petitioner to take possession and lease the units, constituted an unwarranted alteration of the money judgment and was therefore invalid. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order and writ.