G.R. No. L-46274 and L-46549, December 14, 1988
Spouses Camilo Rosello and Dorotea Rosello, et al., petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Numeriano G. Estenzo, Jesus Laurente and Calixtra Yap, respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from the intestate estate of Joaquin Ortega. In a prior final judgment (Civil Case No. R-399), the sale of six estate parcels to petitioner Camilo Rosello was annulled, and he was ordered to deliver possession to the estate administrator. A writ of execution was enforced, with the sheriff’s return indicating five parcels were delivered; one parcel was not, as it was possessed by other parties. Subsequently, private respondent Calixtra Yap filed separate actions concerning other properties. A court-appointed surveyor then conducted surveys across these related cases.
Based on the surveyor’s report, the estate administrator moved for an alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. R-399, alleging that the prior execution was incomplete and that additional lands, including those identified in the new surveys, should be delivered. The trial court granted the motion. Petitioners challenged this via certiorari, arguing the alias writ altered the final judgment by enforcing it over properties not originally included. In a separate but related petition (G.R. No. L-46549), petitioners also sought the disqualification of the presiding judge, alleging bias and prejudgment.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ of execution, which petitioners claim effectively modified a final and executory judgment. The ancillary issue is whether the judge should be disqualified for bias.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. On the main issue, the Court ruled that the alias writ did not amend the final judgment but merely enforced it. The final judgment ordered Rosello to vacate and deliver specific parcels of land belonging to the Ortega estate. The sheriff’s initial return was prima facie evidence of compliance, but it was not conclusive. The subsequent survey, conducted under court order in related cases involving the same parties and subject matter, revealed that the descriptions in the tax declarations used in the initial execution did not match the actual boundaries on the ground. The alias writ sought to deliver the correct areas adjudged to the estate. This was a legitimate implementation, not an alteration, of the judgment. Execution must conform to the decree, and when an execution is incomplete or inaccurate, the court has the inherent power to order its proper enforcement.
Regarding judicial disqualification, the Court found no clear evidence of arbitrariness or prejudice. The judge’s strict adherence to pre-trial orders, while corrected on appeal by an order for new trial, did not constitute bias sufficient to warrant disqualification. This issue was also rendered moot by the judge’s subsequent retirement. The Court of Appeals’ decisions were affirmed, with a modification to exclude one specific lot (Lot No. 4) from the alias writ.