G.R. No. L-50003 April 28, 1980
RAMON CODILLA, GUILLERMO CODILLA and NARCISA ARCUINO, petitioners, vs. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and RUSTICO CAPAHI, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a co-owned property, Lot 657, registered under TCT No. 5041. An annotation on the title indicated an actual partition, with a portion (Lot B, 207 sq. m.) allocated to co-owners Ramon and Guillermo Codilla. A building occupies almost the entirety of Lot B. In 1964, Ramon mortgaged his “rights, shares and interests” over his half-share of Lot B, “and the building built thereon,” to Rustico Capahi under a “Contract of Mortgage with Option to Purchase.” The contract granted Capahi an option to buy the described property for a specified price within certain periods. In 1968, after failed negotiations for Ramon to redeem or for Capahi to exercise the option, Ramon sold his share to his brother, Guillermo.
Capahi subsequently sought to enforce the option to purchase. The Court of Appeals, in a final and executory decision in CA-G.R. No. 48834-R, ruled in favor of Capahi. It set aside Ramon’s sale to Guillermo and ordered Ramon to execute a deed of sale for “one-half of the property” (103.5 sq. m.) in favor of Capahi. Capahi moved for clarification to include the building in the order, but this was denied. The trial court then issued an order for execution, specifically directing the delivery of the 103.5 sq. m. “with the improvements thereon.” Guillermo and Narcisa Arcuino challenged this execution order, arguing it altered the final judgment by expressly including the building.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution issued by the trial court, which ordered the delivery of the land “with the improvements thereon,” varied the terms of the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals that ordered the sale of “one-half of the property.”

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the execution order. The legal logic is grounded on the principle that a writ of execution must conform to the dispositive part of the judgment sought to be executed. The Court examined the appellate decision’s body, which extensively discussed the “Contract of Mortgage with Option to Purchase.” This contract explicitly covered Ramon’s share in the land “and the building built thereon.” The Court of Appeals, in its decision, validated this contract and ordered its enforcement by compelling Ramon to sell the mortgaged property to Capahi. The dispositive portion’s phrase “one-half of the property” must be interpreted in light of the entire decision and the contract that was the subject of the suit. Since the contract indisputably included the building, the “property” subject of the sale necessarily encompassed both the land and the improvement. Therefore, the execution order specifying “with the improvements thereon” did not constitute an alteration but was merely a necessary clarification to give proper effect to the judgment based on the very contract adjudicated as valid. The Court further noted that this execution was without prejudice to a separate pending case (CA-G.R. No. 64576) where Guillermo’s right of legal redemption over the same property was being determined.