GR 152016; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152016; April 13, 2010
NARCISO TUMIBAY, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. SPS. YOLANDA T. SORO AND HONORIO SORO, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
The respondents, Yolanda Soro and Julita Sta. Ana, successfully sued the petitioners for the annulment of a series of sales and the reconveyance of a parcel of land originally owned by their grandmother. The RTC decision, which became final and executory, declared the petitioners’ titles null and void, ordered the reconveyance of the property to the respondents, and authorized the Clerk of Court to execute the deed if the petitioners defaulted. After the titles were reconstituted in the respondents’ names, they filed a motion in the RTC to be restored to possession and to demolish the improvements existing on the land, which were introduced by the petitioners.
The RTC denied the motion, ruling that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision and that the final judgment did not expressly order demolition. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring void the RTC Order that denied the motion for restoration of possession and demolition of improvements.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion outright. A final judgment is not confined to its literal terms but includes all necessary and consequential matters to enforce it and render it effectual. The RTC decision ordering reconveyance inherently carried with it the right to possess the property. The legal logic is grounded in Rule 39, Section 10(d) of the Rules of Court, which specifically governs the execution of judgments for the delivery of real property. This rule provides a clear procedure: if the property contains improvements introduced by the judgment obligor, the court must issue a special order after due hearing, directing the obligor to remove the improvements within a fixed time. Only upon the obligor’s failure to do so may the court order demolition. The RTC’s denial of the motion without conducting the required hearing contravened this explicit rule. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that a separate ejectment case was necessary, as this would sanction multiplicity of suits and frustrate the final judgment. The rights adjudicated in the main case encompass the logical and necessary consequence of restoring full possession to the lawful owners.