G.R. No. L-29659 July 30, 1971
MAXIMO ROMERO, SR., and FLORENCIA DIANETA, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch I, HON. RICARDO L. CASTELO, in his capacity as Clerk of Court and as Provincial Sheriff of Nueva Ecija, LUISA AFAN, LEONILA VALINO, GETULIO VALINO, LOURDES VALINO, LORENZO VALINO, and PABLO DELA CRUZ, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In a prior action for recovery of possession, the trial court found that a 1926 deed of sale to plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest covered only the portion of Lot 1261 north of an irrigation canal (“paligue”). It declared a trust over the southern portion in favor of defendants (petitioners herein) who had remained in possession. The dispositive portion of the final and affirmed decision ordered the plaintiffs to execute a deed of conveyance of “that portion of Lot 1261, south of the irrigation canal.” The body of the decision noted this southern portion contained about 2.6 hectares. To execute this judgment, plaintiffs moved for and obtained orders for subdivision. A survey revealed the area south of the canal was only 12,486 square meters (Lot 1261-A), not 2.6 hectares. Plaintiffs executed a deed for this Lot 1261-A, and the court approved the subdivision plan and issued corresponding writs of execution and possession.
Petitioners (defendants) objected, claiming the executed orders varied the final decision by depriving them of the stipulated 2.6 hectares. They filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it, ruling that their proper remedy was an appeal, not certiorari, since they alleged a variance from the judgment and deprivation of their day in court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal, but clarified the procedural ruling and resolved the substantive merits. On procedure, the Court held that while an appeal is an available remedy against an order of execution that allegedly varies the terms of the judgment, it is not the sole and exclusive remedy. Certiorari is also appropriate and allowable under the Rules in such instances. The CA’s ruling that appeal was the “proper remedy” did not mean it was the only remedy; it merely recognized an exception to the general rule that orders of execution are not appealable. The Court, in the interest of justice given the case’s long pendency, opted to decide the substantive merits.
On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The final judgment’s dispositive portion, which controls for execution, unequivocally ordered conveyance of the portion “south of the irrigation canal,” not a specific area of 2.6 hectares. The reference to 2.6 hectares in the decision’s body was merely a descriptive observation. Applying the settled rule that well-defined boundaries prevail over stated area in land descriptions, the petitioners were entitled only to what lay south of the canal. The survey, showing it was less than 2.6 hectares, implemented the judgment correctly. The writs and orders issued conformed to this dispositive part and did not constitute an alteration of the final decision.