G.R. No. L-54553. May 29, 1984.
RONQUILLO PERATER, et al., petitioners, vs. JUDGE EULALIO ROSETE, Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, TINIO OVERLAND, INC., RODOLFO YGSI and PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of Misamis Oriental and/or his Deputy, respondents.

FACTS

The registered owners of a parcel of land, respondents Rodolfo Ygsi and Tinio Overland, Inc., were defendants in Civil Case No. 4166, an action for annulment of title filed by the Yaba family. The trial court dismissed the Yabas’ complaint and ordered them to pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to the respondents. This decision, which did not adjudicate or even address the issue of physical possession of the land, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, respondents secured writs of execution and possession from the trial court. The sheriff’s return indicated that numerous occupants, including the petitioners herein, were residing on the property. Petitioners were not parties to the annulment suit but claimed to be lawful possessors, having acquired their rights from the defeated Yaba plaintiffs as alleged lessors or vendors.
Respondents then moved for the demolition of petitioners’ houses. The respondent judge granted the motion, ordering petitioners to vacate or face demolition at their expense. Petitioners moved to lift the order, arguing they were not parties to the original case, were possessors in good faith, and would be deprived of property without due process. Their motion was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of possession and an order of demolition can validly be issued against persons who were not parties to the case, where the judgment did not adjudicate the issue of possession.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court annulled the writ of possession and order of demolition directed at the petitioners. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle of due process and the distinct concepts of ownership and possession. A judgment is binding only upon the parties and their successors-in-interest. Petitioners, who were not impleaded in Civil Case No. 4166, cannot be bound by its judgment. Crucially, the decision in that case was limited to the issue of ownership (title annulment) and the award of monetary claims; it did not rule upon the right of possession. Ownership and possession are separate legal attributes. A declaration of ownership does not automatically confer a right to dispossess actual occupants, who may hold the land under a separate claim of right, such as being lessees or builders in good faith. To eject them without being heard on their defenses violates due process.
The Court cited analogous jurisprudence establishing that a judgment for ownership does not necessarily include delivery of possession as a necessary incident, and that execution cannot grant relief not expressly decreed in the judgment. However, to promote expeditious justice, the Court remanded the case, authorizing respondents to file a motion for ejectment in the same court against all occupants, to be served like a complaint, thereby affording petitioners and others a proper hearing to assert their defenses before any eviction.