G.R. No. 33383, August 15, 1930
MODESTA BELTRAN, et al. vs. HERMOGENES REYES, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, et al.

FACTS

Respondent Feliciana Dariano filed Civil Case No. 3551 against petitioners to recover possession of a tract of land described in her complaint as containing an area of 46 hectares, 8 ares, and 24 centiares, with specific boundaries. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Dariano, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on appeal. During execution, the sheriff found that the land within the described boundaries actually measured 89 hectares, 33 ares, and 14 centiares. Petitioners objected, insisting Dariano was entitled only to the area stated in the complaint (46 hectares). The sheriff sought instructions from the trial court, which issued an order directing him to locate the boundary estero (Estero Pitabunan) based on evidence from disinterested persons and to deliver to Dariano all land west of it, regardless of area. The sheriff complied, placing Dariano in possession of the larger area. Petitioners moved to reconsider and annul the sheriff’s actions, but the motions were denied. They then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively increasing the land area after final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order directing the sheriff to deliver possession based on boundaries rather than the area specified in the complaint.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that in determining the extent of land in litigation, the area stated in the complaint is not controlling; boundaries described in the pleadings prevail over area. The trial court’s order did not modify the final judgment but merely interpreted the ambiguous description of the land to aid execution, which is within the court’s jurisdiction. The location of the boundary estero (Estero Pitabunan) was crucial, and the sheriff’s determination, presumed regular, was supported by evidence. The Court found the case analogous to Loyola vs. Bartolome, where similar contentions were rejected. Certiorari does not lie, as the trial court acted within its authority. Costs were imposed on petitioners.