G.R. No. L-29498 - Santiago Lopez and Irineo Lopez vs. Hon. Manases G. Reyes, Judge of the Court of 1st Instance of Davao, et al.

The case involves a Special Civil Action for Certiorari filed by petitioners Santiago Lopez and Irineo Lopez against Judge Manases G. Reyes, the ex officio sheriff Eriberto Unson, and Juan Magallanes.
The petition seeks to nullify the order denying the petitioners’ Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution issued in Civil Case No. 2298.

On August 9, 1958, Judge Honorio Romero of the Court of First Instance of Davao rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 2298 which dismissed the complaint and ordered the petitioners to segregate an eight (8) hectare portion of the land (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2990) and deliver the title to Juan Magallanes.
The dismissal was based on a prior final judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 9874-R that determined the right of ownership and possession over the eight (8) hectares in favor of respondent Juan Magallanes.
On September 25, 1958, petitioners directly appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which, on April 23, 1963, affirmed the lower court’s ruling based on the preclusive effect of the earlier judgment. This decision became final and executory on May 28, 1963.

On April 2, 1968, respondent Juan Magallanes filed a Motion for Execution of the April 23, 1963 decision.
A writ of execution was issued on April 6, 1968, directing segregation of the eight (8) hectares of land and delivery of the corresponding title to Juan Magallanes.
On April 15, 1968, petitioners filed a Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution, contending that:

The writ did not specify the portion of land described in the deed of sale with right to repurchase dated May 10, 1942, which clearly identified the area by its definite boundaries.
The originally estimated eight (8) hectares did not match the surveyed area, which measured 64,640 square meters, as shown by the subsequent Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5340 in the name of petitioner Irineo Lopez.
Since the subject matter of the sale was limited to the land with definite boundaries as specified in the contract, only that area should be segregated and delivered.

The writ of execution was based on an already final and executory decision that mandated segregation of precisely eight (8) hectares.
The "Sale with Right to Repurchase" specifically stated that only eight (8) hectares (out of a 16-hectare property) was sold.
The survey yielding 64,640 square meters was conducted without his knowledge and consent.

On April 26, 1968, the trial court judge denied the Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution, stating that the writ executed the final decision and therefore was beyond his authority to alter.

After the denial of the motion for reconsideration (filed on May 13, 1968 and denied on June 21, 1968), the petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari with a request for a preliminary injunction.
The petition alleged that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in refusing to modify the writ of execution.

Whether the trial court had the authority to modify the writ of execution directing segregation of the eight (8) hectare portion of land as ordered in the earlier final judgment.

Does the finality of the judgment preclude any modification of the writ of execution based on the petitioners’ contention regarding the actual measured area of the land?

Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the petitioners from relitigating the land area issue, particularly regarding the discrepancy between the estimated eight (8) hectares and the surveyed area of 64,640 square meters.

Is the petitioners’ argument on the land’s measured area considered a supervening circumstance that would justify modifying the execution order?