G.R. No. 78595 . April 10, 1989.
TIMOTEO MAGNO, petitioner, vs. FLORENTINA BLANCO and SESINANDO ACOSTA and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Timoteo Magno was the agricultural lessee of land owned by respondents spouses Florentina Blanco and Sesinando Acosta. In a 1971 agrarian case (CAR Case No. 2121-P’71), the parties entered into a compromise agreement, approved by the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR), wherein Magno agreed to pay an annual rental of 20 cavans of palay. Magno later fell into arrears. To recover the unpaid rentals, respondents filed a motion for an alias writ of execution in the same CAR case. The CAR granted the motion. Consequently, the deputy sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction two parcels of land owned by Magno to respondent Acosta to satisfy the rental debt.
Magno refused to surrender the levied properties. Respondents then filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the complaint, declaring the sheriff’s sale null and void. It ruled that the 1971 CAR decision, which only ordered payment in cavans of palay without specifying a monetary value, was incomplete and not final for execution. The RTC held that the sheriff had no authority to fix the price, a matter requiring judicial discretion. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, reinstating the validity of the execution and sale.

ISSUE

Whether the alias writ of execution issued in CAR Case No. 2121-P’71, and the consequent levy and sale of Magno’s properties, were valid.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision, declaring the alias writ of execution and the sheriff’s sale null and void. The Court’s legal logic centered on the nature and finality of the judgment to be executed. The 1971 compromise judgment merely ordered payment of a specific quantity of palay (20 cavans annually). It did not adjudicate a specific liquidated sum of money, as it left the monetary conversion rate undetermined. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the judgment it seeks to enforce; it cannot vary the judgment’s terms or award relief not originally granted. Here, the writ effectively converted an unliquidated rental obligation into a fixed money judgment by having the sheriff set the price of palay. This constituted an alteration of the judgment, which is beyond the scope of a writ of execution. Furthermore, the ex parte application for the writ deprived Magno of due process, especially given that forfeiture of a leasehold for non-payment of rentals requires a hearing under agrarian laws. Since the alias writ was invalid, all subsequent proceedings, including the levy and sale, were likewise void.