G.R. No. 170349 February 12, 2009
SPS. IGLECERIO MAHINAY and FIDELA MAHINAY, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. ENRIQUE C. ASIS, Presiding Judge, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran; SHERIFF LUDENILO S. ADOR, DANILO VELASQUEZ III, VIRGILIO VELASQUEZ, MERLE VELASQUEZ, ETHEL VELASQUEZ, CIELO VELASQUEZ, DR. GERTRUDEZ VELASQUEZ and LINO REDOBLADO, Represented by ATTY. GABINO A. VELASQUEZ, JR., Respondents.

SPS. SIMEON NARRIDO and GLORIA E. NARRIDO, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. ENRIQUE C. ASIS, Presiding Judge, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran; SHERIFF LUDENILO S. ADOR, DANILO VELASQUEZ III, VIRGILIO VELASQUEZ, LOLITA VELASQUEZ, MARIA CIELO VELASQUEZ, DR. GERTRUDEZ VELASQUEZ, GABINO VELASQUEZ IV, and LINO REDOBLADO, represented by ATTY. GABINO A. VELASQUEZ, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

On February 24, 1987 and January 6, 1988, respondents (the Velasquezes et al.) filed separate complaints for recovery of possession of parcels of land against petitioners (the Mahinays and the Narridos) before the RTC of Naval, Biliran. Respondents claimed ownership based on certificates of title. While these cases were pending, the Republic of the Philippines filed Reversion Cases against respondents, seeking cancellation of their titles and reversion of the lands to the public domain. The RTC initially decided in favor of respondents in both the recovery and reversion cases. On appeal, the CA, in the Reversion Cases, declared the lands to be within public forest and nullified respondents’ titles, reverting the lands to the public domain. This CA decision became final. Subsequently, the CA, in the recovery cases (Mahinay and Narrido), modified the RTC decision. It declared the State as the owner of the lands but held that respondents were “better entitled to possession thereof” and entitled to actual damages for their inability to use them. The CA remanded the case to the RTC solely for the determination and computation of damages. On remand, respondents filed a motion for execution. The RTC issued an Order granting the motion and, beyond the CA’s directive, ordered the sheriff to place respondents in possession of the lands, declaring them “registered owner[s] thereof.” Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. The CA affirmed the RTC orders, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, in executing the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals, acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by awarding possession of the disputed lands to the respondents—a relief not expressly ordered by the appellate court.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The RTC acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The CA’s final and executory Decision of December 5, 2001 only ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for the “determination and computation of correct amount of damages due” to the respondents. It did not award possession of the lands to the respondents. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed; it cannot vary the terms of the judgment or grant a relief not originally adjudged. The RTC’s January 28, 2004 Order, which directed the sheriff to deliver possession to respondents, altered the CA decision by adding a substantive relief not contained therein. The RTC’s reliance on a subsequent CA Resolution (dated April 11, 2002) that denied respondents’ motion for delivery of possession pending determination of ownership was misplaced, as that Resolution did not modify the final dispositive portion of the CA Decision. The execution was therefore void for being issued in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the assailed CA Decision and Resolution and nullified the RTC’s January 28, 2004 and April 26, 2004 Orders.