G.R. No. 196461 - Vicente vs. Acil Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196461)

Factual Background

Acil Corporation acquired Lot 297, a 9,173-square meter parcel, and obtained TCT No. T-120730. Warlito C. Vicente acquired Free Patent No. 112402-91-1(W) and Original Certificate of Title No. P-13257 for Lot 10375, an adjacent 8,619-square meter parcel. Acil alleged that Lot 10375 was formed by accretion to Lot 297 and thus remained private property, but that Vicente had clandestinely encroached upon Lot 297 by constructing a fence; a survey by Geodetic Engineer Agustin M. Vedua dated June 15, 1993 produced a sketch plan showing the alleged encroachment.

Trial Court Proceedings

Acil Corporation filed a complaint for cancellation of title and recovery of possession with prayer for preliminary injunctive relief. The RTC dismissed Acil’s complaint in a Decision dated July 5, 1999 on the ground that Acil failed to prove that Lot 10375 was an accretion to Lot 297.

Court of Appeals Decision of September 12, 2003

On appeal the Court of Appeals declared Vicente the lawful owner of the land formed by accretion known as Lot 10375, but ordered Vicente to vacate and deliver possession of the portion of land “consisting of, more or less, 4,237 square meters” to Acil Corporation, “in so far as it encroaches on Lot 297.” The CA identified the encroachment as the shaded portion in Acil’s Exhibit “G-4,” a sketch plan prepared by Engr. Vedua.

Finality of Judgment and Writ of Execution

Both parties’ petitions for review to the Supreme Court were denied by resolution dated November 14, 2005, and the CA judgment became final and executory on October 6, 2006. Upon Acil’s motion, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution on May 23, 2008. The May 23, 2008 writ directed the sheriff “to levy the goods, chattels and real properties of defendants,” language that Vicente later characterized as inconsistent with the CA’s specific directive to deliver possession of the identified portion of land.

Post-execution Motions and Competing Surveys

Vicente filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and Enjoin Implementation of Void Writ of Execution on June 18, 2008, arguing that execution could not proceed absent a prior survey to determine the encroached area, and asserting that the May 23, 2008 writ did not conform to the CA decision. Acil agreed the writ was in variance and sought amendment, and separately moved for appointment of a geodetic engineer to determine the encroachment. Without waiting for the RTC, Acil conducted a verification survey through Engr. Vedua showing an encroachment of 6,269 square meters, greater than the 4,237 square meters identified by the CA.

RTC Order of January 14, 2010 and Denial of Reconsideration

The RTC denied Acil’s motion for the appointment of a surveyor and held there was no need for a new survey because the CA had already determined and identified the encroached area as the shaded portion in Exhibit “G-4.” The RTC ordered the issuance of a new writ of execution implementing the CA’s dispositive paragraph as written. Vicente moved for reconsideration on the ground that a second survey showed a larger encroachment and that execution should await DENR determination; the RTC denied the motion as a mere rehash on March 8, 2010.

Court of Appeals Review and Ruling

Vicente petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari, raising only the issue whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion by refusing to appoint a surveyor. In a Decision dated September 30, 2010, the CA affirmed the RTC’s January 14, 2010 Order, ruling that the execution of the CA’s September 12, 2003 Decision was neither impossible nor unjust and that the writ of execution to be issued must conform to the judgment. Vicente’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA resolution dated March 18, 2011.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The narrow question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Vicente’s certiorari petition and thereby in affirming the RTC’s refusal to appoint a surveyor and its order to issue a writ of execution conforming to the CA’s September 12, 2003 Decision.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 30, 2010 and Resolution dated March 18, 2011. The Court held that no grave abuse of discretion attended the RTC’s refusal to appoint a surveyor and that execution of the CA decision was proper.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court explained that Vicente had raised only the surveyor-appointment issue before the CA and could not successfully challenge in this Court an issue he had not properly presented below, namely the alleged validation of the defective May 23, 2008 writ. The Court noted that the RTC, in the January 14, 2010 Order, had not affirmed the defective writ but had corrected its prior issuance by ordering a new writ conforming to the CA’s dispositive paragraph. The Court emphasized that the CA in its September 12, 2003 Decision had identified the encroached area as the shaded portion in Exhibit “G-4,” prepared by Engr. Vedua, and therefore there was no reasonable basis to delay execution pending another survey. The Court reiterated the principle that once a decision becomes final and executory it is the ministe

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 196461)

Parties and Posture

Warlito C. Vicente was the petitioner before the Supreme Court seeking review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals' affirmance of an RTC order directing execution of a final judgment.
Acil Corporation was the respondent and the prevailing party in the underlying litigation who sought execution of the Court of Appeals' decision ordering the recovery of an encroached portion of land.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 12, 2003 as implemented and the CA Decision dated September 30, 2010 and Resolution dated March 18, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03508-MIN.
The Supreme Court resolved a petition for review on certiorari contesting the RTC's issuance of a writ of execution and its denial of an appointment of a surveyor.

Key Facts

Acil Corporation acquired Lot 297, a 9,173-square meter parcel in Barrio Talomo, Davao City, and was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-120730.
Warlito C. Vicente obtained Free Patent No. 112402-91-1(W) for Lot 10375, an 8,619-square meter parcel adjacent to Lot 297, and received Original Certificate of Title No. P-13257 on March 27, 1991.
Acil filed a complaint on May 2, 1994 for cancellation of title and recovery of possession, alleging Lot 10375 was accretion to Lot 297 and that Vicente clandestinely encroached on Lot 297 as shown in a survey sketch by Geodetic Engineer Agustin M. Vedua.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed Acil’s complaint on July 5, 1999 for failure to prove accretion, but the Court of Appeals on September 12, 2003 declared Vicente lawful owner of Lot 10375 while ordering him to vacate and deliver possession of about 4,237 square meters to Acil as encroachment on Lot 297.
The parties' petitions to the Supreme Court were denied by resolution on November 14, 2005, and the CA judgment became final and executory on October 6, 2006.
The RTC issued a writ of execution on May 23, 2008 directing levy of goods, chattels, and real properties of defendants, a form that Vicente alleged was inconsistent with the CA decision.
Acil procured a verification survey by Engr. Vedua showing an encroachment of 6,269 square meters, while Vicente insisted a proper survey by the DENR should precede execution.
The RTC denied the appointment of a surveyor on January 14, 2010 and ordered issuance of a new writ of execution conforming to the CA decision; the CA affirmed that order on September 30, 2010 and denied reconsideration on March 18, 2011.

Lower Courts' Decisions

The RTC dismissed Acil's complaint in Civil Case No. 22,866-94 in a Decision dated July 5, 1999.
The Court of Appeals reversed in part and ordered Vicente to vacate approximately 4,237 square meters in a Decision dated