G.R. No. L-46843 October 18, 1988
VIRGILIA CABRESOS, WELDELINO CABRESOS, RUBYLIN CABRESOS, LUZVIMINDA CABRESOS, MARILOU CABRESOS, ROQUELITO CABRESOS and SYLVIA LUNA CABRESOS, petitioners, vs. MEYNARDO A. TIRO in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch VIII Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, DAMASO B. DAHINO in his capacity as Provincial Deputy Sheriff of Misamis Oriental, RAMON QUIZ and GENEROSA ENRIQUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Ramon Quiz and Generosa Enriquez filed a case for recovery of ownership and possession of a portion of land against spouses Galicano and Florentina Cabresos. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Quiz and Enriquez, ordering the Cabresos spouses to vacate the land, pay rentals and damages, and declaring a house built by the spouses to have been constructed in bad faith, thereby granting the plaintiffs the alternative rights under Articles 440 and 450 of the Civil Code. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Upon finality, a writ of execution was issued. The writ, however, ordered the delivery to the plaintiffs of “two buildings” constructed by the defendants in bad faith.
The petitioners, who are the wife and children of a son of the original defendant spouses, occupied a second building on the litigated land. This second structure was built only during the pendency of the original litigation, initially as a small camarin and later expanded into a dwelling. Petitioners resisted the writ, arguing they were not parties to the original case and their house was not part of the judgment. They filed a separate action for quieting of title. During proceedings, petitioner Virgilia Cabresos executed a written promise before the court, assisted by her counsel, to remove her house within thirty days or have no objection to its demolition, and to dismiss their separate civil case.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution, which ordered the delivery of two buildings, and the subsequent proceedings to enforce it against the petitioners constitute a grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the principle of voluntary acquiescence to a judgment and the nature of execution proceedings. The Court clarified that a writ of execution must conform to the judgment it seeks to enforce. The decision in the main case declared the house built by the original defendants to be in bad faith, granting the prevailing party the alternative rights under the Civil Code (e.g., to appropriate the improvements). The writ’s mention of “two buildings” was a factual recognition of the structures existing on the property at the time of execution, which included the petitioners’ dwelling. Crucially, the petitioners, as successors-in-interest to the original defendants who built the first house, and as builders of the second house on the disputed land, are bound by the judgment against their predecessors.
The pivotal factor, however, was petitioner Virgilia Cabresos’s written promise, executed with the assistance of counsel, to vacate and remove the house. This constituted a clear and voluntary acquiescence to the execution of the final judgment. The Court reiterated the doctrine that a party who voluntarily acquiesces in the execution of a judgment is estopped from challenging it or its implementation. Her subsequent attempt to repudiate this promise, absent proof of fraud or coercion, was immaterial. This voluntary act ratified the execution process and rendered the separate action for quieting of title moot, leading to its dismissal. Thus, the respondents’ acts in implementing the writ were a proper enforcement of a final judgment, to which the petitioners had voluntarily agreed.