G.R. No. 169157 ; November 14, 2011
SPOUSES BENJAMIN and NORMA GARCIA, Petitioners, vs. ESTER GARCIA, AMADO GARCIA, ADELA GARCIA, ROSA GARCIA and DAVID GARCIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Emilio Garcia died intestate in 1962, leaving a 1,564-square-meter lot in Quezon City. He was survived by his second wife, Monica Cruz, and his children from his first marriage (including petitioners Benjamin Garcia and Rita Garcia-Shipley and respondents Ester, Amado, Adela, Rosa, and David Garcia) and second marriage. In 1971, Benjamin and Rita executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, fraudulently declaring themselves as the sole heirs and partitioning the property between themselves, to the exclusion of the other heirs. Titles were issued in their names.
In 1973, two children from the second marriage sued to annul the titles. The parties entered into a Compromise Agreement in 1974, approved by the court, providing for the partition of the property among all heirs. However, Rita only partially implemented this agreement by partitioning her share with Monica and her children, still excluding the respondents (her siblings from the first marriage).
In 1982, respondents filed a complaint for reconveyance against Rita, Benjamin, and Monica and her children. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, ordering the defendants to convey to the plaintiffs their shares based on the 1974 Compromise Agreement and the law on intestate succession. This decision was affirmed by the CA and later by the Supreme Court, becoming final and executory. A writ of execution was issued.
Meanwhile, Norma Garcia (Benjamin’s wife) had purchased a portion of the property from Rita in 1979. In 1993, she filed a separate Petition for Quieting of Title, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, as her title originated from the fraudulently partitioned mother title.
Respondents moved for an alias writ of execution in the reconveyance case. Petitioners (Spouses Benjamin and Norma Garcia) opposed, filing an Urgent Motion to Quash, arguing that: (1) the execution would amend the final judgment by including properties registered in their names which were not part of the case, and (2) Norma was an indispensable party who was not impleaded in the reconveyance case. The RTC denied the motion, and its denial was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s orders denying the motion to quash the alias writ of execution, thereby allowing the execution to proceed against properties registered in the names of petitioners Benjamin and Norma Garcia.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. The Alias Writ of Execution Did Not Amend the Final Judgment. The Court held that the alias writ of execution was a proper implementation of the final and executory 1989 RTC decision. The dispositive portion of that decision ordered the defendants to convey to the plaintiffs their shares based on the 1974 Compromise Agreement and the law on intestate succession. The writ of execution, which specifically mentioned the Compromise Agreement, did not alter the judgment but merely clarified the means to enforce it. The Court emphasized that an order of execution is issued to enforce a judgment, not to amend it. The properties registered under the names of Benjamin and Norma Garcia were traceable to the original fraudulently partitioned title (TCT No. 18550) and were therefore subject to the execution to satisfy the rightful shares of the omitted heirs (respondents).
2. Norma Garcia is Estopped by Laches; She is Not an Indispensable Party. The Court ruled that Norma Garcia cannot claim to be an indispensable party who was not impleaded in the reconveyance case. She was aware of the ongoing litigation concerning the property since 1982 but did not intervene. Her subsequent action for quieting of title was dismissed based on res judicata. By purchasing the property during the pendency of the reconveyance case and failing to assert her claim therein, she was guilty of laches. The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply when the title was acquired through fraud, and the property is held in co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate. Her title, derived from the fraudulent extrajudicial settlement, did not confer upon her a right superior to that of the lawful co-owners.
3. The Final Judgment Must be Executed. The Court reiterated that a final and executory judgment must be executed as a matter of right. The duty of the court is to see to it that the judgment is carried out. The petitioners’ attempt to delay execution by raising issues already settled in the final judgment and in the dismissed quieting of title case was without merit.
*Therefore, the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s issuance of the orders denying the motion to quash the alias writ of execution.*