G.R. No. 152016 - Tumibay vs. Spouses Soro

The petitioners (Narciso Tumibay, Ruperto Tumibay, Elena Tumibay, Eduardo Tumibay, Corazon Tumibay, Manuela Severino Vda. De Perida, and Gregoria Dela Cruz) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the CA decision and resolution.
The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision dated August 24, 2001 and its subsequent resolution dated January 29, 2002 that nullified the RTC Order dated September 6, 1999.
The respondents include Yolanda T. Soro, Honorio Soro, Julita T. Sta. Ana, and Felicisimo Sta. Ana.

Originally, in Civil Case No. 8269 filed on January 17, 1984, the petitioners (including respondent Julita) were defendants in an action for annulment and recovery of ownership with damages filed by respondent Yolanda T. Soro and her husband Honorio Soro.
The subject property is a 1,083 square meter parcel of land in Cabanatuan City initially titled in the name of Francisca Sacdal (grandmother of Yolanda and Julita) under OCT No. 1738.
A transfer occurred through a “Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa” (February 2 & 13, 1967), wherein OCT No. 1738 was cancelled and TCT No. T-11574 was issued in Narciso Tumibay’s name.

Narciso Tumibay sold the subject property to the other petitioners, leading to the issuance of TCT Nos. T-23150, T-27151, and T-42467 in their names.
Later, on December 30, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring:

The “Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa” and all subsequent sales executed thereunder to be null and void ab initio.
The annulment of TCT No. T-11574, as well as subsequent titles issued in the names of the petitioners.
Yolanda T. Soro and Julita T. Sta. Ana were declared as the sole heirs of Estela Perida and owners of the land under OCT No. 1738.
The petitioners were ordered to reconvey the property to Yolanda and Julita.
The petitioners were jointly and severally ordered to pay actual and moral damages, attorney’s fee, and costs.

The RTC decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court.
After finality, the RTC, acting on Yolanda’s motion, issued a writ of execution resulting in TCT Nos. T-98649 and T-98650 being issued in favor of Yolanda and Perlita.
On March 3, 1999, Yolanda and Perlita (with their respective spouses) sought to be restored to possession of the property and to demolish the improvements as provided under Rule 39, Section 10 of the Rules of Court.
The petitioners opposed this motion, arguing that there was no express order for demolition in the original RTC decision.

The RTC, on September 6, 1999, issued an Order denying the respondents’ motion, holding that a writ of execution must conform to the judgment’s dispositive portion and cannot extend to demolishing improvements not expressly ordered.
Upon denial of the motion for reconsideration by the RTC, the respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
The CA, on August 24, 2001, held that:

Under Rule 39, Section 10, paragraph (d), the demolition of improvements requires a separate special order issued after a due hearing and once the petitioners have failed to remove the improvements within a fixed time.
It subsequently declared void the RTC Order which denied the respondents’ motion and directed the RTC to set a time for petitioners to remove the improvements.

Argued that the writ of execution should strictly conform to the judgment’s dispositive portion.
Claimed that since the RTC decision did not expressly order the removal/demolition of improvements, the RTC should not exercise such power by virtue of its order.
Cited Nazareno v. Court of Appeals to support the position that ownership does not automatically include the right to possession of all improvements.

Asserted that the petitioners’ reading of the decision was contrary to Rule 39, Section 47, which makes judgments conclusive on all matters that could have been raised.
Argued that requiring an ejectment suit to remove petitioners would encourage multiplicity of suits.
Maintained that the removal of improvements, though not expressly stated, is inherent in the execution of the judgment where possession is involved.

The Court noted the petitioners' delaying tactics which hindered the proper execution of the RTC judgment.
The petitioners had filed a Manifestation indicating that Julita had sold her share to a third party (Corazon T. Logramente), but the Court held this was irrelevant to the main issue concerning the RTC Order.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring void the RTC Order dated September 6, 1999 that denied the respondents’ motion to be restored to possession of the subject property and to demolish the improvements thereon.
Whether the demolition of the improvements, though not expressly ordered in the RTC decision, could be read into the judgment as an ancillary measure included in the execution of the judgment.
Whether the petitioners’ reliance on Nazareno v. Court of Appeals is a correct interpretation regarding the right to possession versus ownership of improvements.