GR L 13406; (January, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13406; January 24, 1919
SINFOROSO LOYOLA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CANUTO BARTOLOME, sheriff of Tayabas, FLORENCIO CHANGCO, AGAPITO VILLASEÑOR, and LEONCIO CARNEO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
Leoncio Carneo filed an action (Civil Case No. 864) against Sinforoso Loyola and Buenaventura Bobadilla to recover a parcel of land. In his complaint, Carneo described a large tract of 12+ hectares (paragraph 2) and a smaller “strip” of about 3 hectares within it (paragraph 3), which Loyola allegedly possessed. Loyola denied this, claiming the land he bought from Bobadilla was located elsewhere. The trial court ruled for Loyola, but the Supreme Court reversed, ordering Carneo restored to possession of the “strip of land” described in paragraph 3 of his complaint. Upon execution, the sheriff delivered to Carneo not just a 3-hectare strip but the entire 12+ hectare parcel described by the boundaries in paragraph 3. Loyola objected, but the trial court, after ordering surveys, upheld the sheriff’s action. Loyola then filed this independent action to recover the excess land (over 3 hectares) and annul the sheriff’s execution.
ISSUE:
Whether the sheriff, in executing the judgment in the prior case (Carneo v. Loyola), erred by delivering possession of a 12+ hectare parcel instead of the 3-hectare strip described in the complaint, thereby exceeding the judgment’s scope.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment denying Loyola’s claim. The Court held that the prior judgment effectively awarded Carneo the entire parcel bounded by the specific metes and bounds described in paragraph 3 of his complaint, notwithstanding the erroneous statement of its area as “about 3 hectares.” The identity of the land was determined by its boundaries, not its estimated area. The evidence in the prior case conclusively established Carneo’s ownership of the entire 12+ hectares within those boundaries. The sheriff, acting under the trial court’s supervision, correctly executed the judgment by delivering the land as defined by its boundaries. Furthermore, the Court noted that Loyola, in this equitable action, failed to prove he was the rightful owner of any part of the land from which he was dispossessed, as Carneo’s ownership was clearly established.