G.R. No. L-13798; July 31, 1961
CIPRIANO E. UNSON, petitioner-appellee, vs. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL., respondents, GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

In a prior case (G.R. No. L-7909), Cipriano Unson successfully challenged the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 3470, which withdrew a portion of Callejon del Carmen from public use and leased it to Genato Commercial Corporation. The Supreme Court nullified the ordinance and the lease contract for violating Article 638 of the Civil Code, which establishes a three-meter public easement along the banks of esteros. Genato had constructed a building on the leased area, which obstructed this easement along the Estero de San Sebastian. The dispositive portion of that final decision declared the ordinance and lease null and void but did not explicitly order the removal of Genato’s building.
After the decision became final, Unson filed a motion in the lower court for a writ of execution to compel Genato to remove its construction from the land. Genato Corporation opposed, arguing that the decision contained no specific order for demolition or removal, and thus execution could not extend that far. The lower court granted Unson’s motion and ordered execution, prompting Genato’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution issued by the lower court, which included an order for the removal of Genato’s construction, was a proper implementation of the final judgment in G.R. No. L-7909 that declared the ordinance and lease contract null and void.

RULING

Yes, the writ of execution was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, ruling that the removal of the building was a necessary and implied consequence of the final judgment annulling the ordinance and lease. The Court applied the doctrine that a judgment includes not only what is expressly stated in the dispositive portion but also every necessary remedy to give it effect and carry out its intent.
The legal logic is clear: the sole basis for Genato’s right to occupy the land and construct the building was the now-nullified ordinance and lease contract. The Court’s prior declaration of nullity effectively stripped Genato of any legal right to maintain the structure, which was the very obstruction that rendered the public easement inoperative. To require Unson to file a separate action for demolition would be a cumbersome and unnecessary process, as the right to removal flows directly from the annulment. The Court distinguished the inapplicability of builder-in-good-faith provisions (Articles 448, 546, 548 of the Civil Code), as Unson was not the owner of the land seeking possession, and the City of Manila, the owner, did not appeal. The execution order was therefore a logical and essential component to fully effectuate the final judgment and restore the public easement.