G.R. No. 166518 ; June 16, 2009
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY, BRANCH 19, and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

This case stems from a prior expropriation proceeding ( G.R. No. 154411 ) where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the order condemning the respondents’ properties at ₱11,200.00 per square meter and the garnishment of petitioner NHA’s funds for just compensation. Pending final resolution of that case, the RTC, Branch 11 issued a writ of execution for ₱104,641,600.00. Through garnishments from 2001 to 2003, various banks released amounts to the respondents. A sheriff’s progress report later revealed a computational discrepancy and a shortage in the released funds, leaving an unsatisfied balance of ₱70,300.00. Furthermore, the respondents claimed they were entitled to 12% per annum interest due to the piecemeal and delayed payment spanning 32 months. The case was re-raffled to RTC, Branch 19 after the original judge inhibited himself. RTC, Branch 19 granted the respondents’ motions for an alias writ of execution to cover the ₱70,300.00 shortage and for payment of interest amounting to ₱25,695,746.15. The Court of Appeals affirmed this omnibus order. The NHA filed this petition, arguing that the expropriation case was already terminated, the RTC, Branch 19 lacked jurisdiction, and the award of interest was improper as the original decision was silent on it.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 had jurisdiction to resolve the motions for an alias writ of execution and payment of interest.
2. Whether the grant of the alias writ of execution to cover a deficiency was proper.
3. Whether the imposition of 12% per annum interest on the unpaid just compensation was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On Jurisdiction: The RTC, Branch 19 had jurisdiction. The petitioner was estopped from challenging its jurisdiction as it was the one who filed the motion for inhibition that led to the re-raffle, and it actively participated in the proceedings before Branch 19 by filing motions and seeking relief. Furthermore, a court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute its final judgment. The motions for an alias writ and interest were not new, independent suits but were incidents related to the execution of the final judgment in the already-terminated expropriation case.
2. On the Alias Writ of Execution: The issuance was proper. A writ of execution must conform to the judgment. The sheriff’s report established a deficiency of ₱70,300.00 in satisfying the full judgment amount. An alias writ to cover this deficiency was necessary to ensure the faithful and complete execution of the court’s final decision on just compensation.
3. On the Payment of Interest: The imposition of 12% per annum interest was proper. The Court distinguished between two types of interest in expropriation: interest as part of just compensation for the delay between taking and payment, and interest for the delay in payment after the judgment has become final. The latter is considered a form of legal interest for the forbearance of money, which is due by operation of law and need not be expressly stated in the judgment. Since the petitioner made delayed, piecemeal payments after the judgment became final and executory, the respondents were entitled to legal interest at 12% per annum on the unpaid balance from the time the judgment became final until its full satisfaction.