G.R. No. 196461 July 15, 2015
WARLITO C. VICENTE, Petitioner, vs. ACIL CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Acil Corporation acquired Lot 297 in Davao City. Petitioner Warlito C. Vicente acquired the adjacent Lot 10375 via a Free Patent. Acil filed a complaint for cancellation of title and recovery of possession, alleging Lot 10375 was an accretion to its Lot 297 and that Vicente encroached on a portion of Lot 297. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated September 12, 2003, upheld Vicente’s ownership of Lot 10375 but ordered him to vacate and deliver possession of an encroached portion of “more or less, 4,237 square meters” on Lot 297, as identified in a sketch plan (Exhibit “G-4”) prepared by Engr. Agustin M. Vedua. This CA Decision became final and executory. Upon Acil’s motion, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution on May 23, 2008, which erroneously directed the sheriff “to levy the goods, chattels and real properties of defendants.” Vicente moved to quash this writ. The RTC, in an Order dated January 14, 2010, denied Acil’s motion to appoint a surveyor, ruled that the sheriff could execute the judgment based on the identified sketch plan (Exhibit “G-4”), and ordered the issuance of a new writ to implement the CA Decision’s dispositive portion. Vicente’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Vicente filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, arguing the RTC gravely abused its discretion in not appointing a surveyor. The CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Vicente’s motion for reconsideration raised, for the first time, the issue of the defective May 23, 2008 Writ of Execution not being quashed. The CA denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Vicente’s petition for certiorari, which challenged the RTC’s Order denying the appointment of a surveyor and directing the execution of the final judgment.

RULING

The petition lacks merit. The Court of Appeals did not err. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution without appointing a surveyor. The final and executory CA Decision of September 12, 2003 had already determined the encroached area (approximately 4,237 sq.m.) and identified it with reasonable certainty by referring to the specific sketch plan (Exhibit “G-4”) prepared by Engr. Vedua. Therefore, no further survey was necessary for the sheriff to execute the judgment by delivering possession of that identified area. The Court noted Vicente’s misleading attempt to conflate the erroneous May 23, 2008 Writ of Execution (which directed a levy) with the RTC’s January 14, 2010 Order, which precisely corrected that error by ordering the issuance of a new writ conforming to the CA Decision’s dispositive portion (to deliver possession). The CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion, as the RTC’s order was not capricious, whimsical, or despotic but was in faithful implementation of the final judgment.