University of the Philippines College of Law

LTD [YM]

Case Name Pascual v. Daquioag1

Topic Judgment
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 162063 | March 31, 2014
Ponente J. Bersamin
Pascual filed a Free Patent Application of three lots, which was denied after Villamor filed a
protest. The DENR ruled in favor of Villamor. Such decision was appealed by Pascual all the way
to the CA, but she failed to get a favorable ruling. Daquioag, as CENRO, issued a writ of execution,
Pascual contested this, claiming the writ was issued in gave abuse of discretion by when it placed
Case Summary Villamor in possession of the premises in question as the DENR did not authorize or direct such
action. The SC ultimately held that despite the absence of the specific wording in the decision
directing such action, the writ of execution issued upon a final judgment adjudicating the
ownership of land to a party may authorize putting her in possession although the judgment
does not specifically direct such act.
A judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but extends as well to those
Doctrine
necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

RELEVANT FACTS
● 24 Jan 1984: Pascual filed a Free Patent Application (FPA) over three lots of the Vintar Cadastre in Vintar,
Ilocos Norte
○ Respondent Almazan-Villamor filed a protest, claiming she had no right to apply for a title over the
properties
● 7 Sept 1992: The DENR Regional Executive Director of Region I (RED) in San Fernando, La Union gave
due course to the protest of Almazan-Villamor, and rejected the free patent application of Pascual, advising
the former to file FPAs after the finality of the decision
● Pascual appealed to:
○ DENR Secretary à Affirmed decision of RED
○ Office of the President (OP) à Affirmed DENR Secretary
○ CA à Denied outright due to procedural lapses
■ OP decision became final upon failure to move for the reconsideration
● 3 July 2000: RED issued a writ of execution, directing the CENRO2 of Bangui, Ilocos Norte to execute the
decision of the OP
● 19 July 2000: CENRO Daquioag issued a memo directing respondent land bureau officers to implement the
writ of execution against Pascual
● 27 July 2000: Execution proceedings were carried out

Regional Trial Court

● Pascual brought a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for issuance of writ of injunction in the RTC,
assailing the issuance of the memorandum and the execution proceedings

1
Leonora A. Pascual, represented By Florebhee N. Agcaoili, Attorney-In-Fact, petitioner, vs. Josefino L. Daquioag, in his capacity
as CENRO of Bangui, Ilocos Norte; Emilio R. D. Doloroso, in his capacity as Land Management Officer III, DENR, CENRO-Bangui,
Ilocos Norte; Alberto B. Baguio, in his capacity as Special Land Investigator; Renato C. Tumamao And Nilo C. Ceralde, in their
capacity as Cartographers/DPLIS, CENRO-Bangui, Ilocos Norte; and Catalina Almazan-Villamor, respondents
2
Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
 University of the Philippines College of Law
LTD [YM]
○ Alleged Daquioag acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing said memorandum to execute the
decision “by placing Catalina Almazan-Villamor in possession of the premises in question”
because the decision of the RED did not authorize or direct such action
○ CENRO and the RED had no power to order her ejectment + execution proceedings were null and
void for being done without or in excess of jurisdiction and carried out without notice to her and in
her absence
● Respondents’ answer with counter-claim and motion to dismiss
○ Writ of execution conformed with the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code
○ Efforts to cause personal service on Pascual were made but she and her husband were both out of the
country according to neighbors and relatives
○ The assailed memorandum had been regularly issued pursuant to the administrative official function
of their agency and as the legal consequence of the resolution of the land claims and conflict
○ They did not act with grave abuse of discretion as the execution complied with the directive of the
RED, and the phrase “placing the winning party” found in the memo was but the logical
interpretation of the decision
● Almazan-Villamor’s answer
○ Daquioag did not gravely abuse his discretion as the OP decision implied her possession of the
properties be enforced because of her being adjudged the owner
○ Notice to and presence of the losing party were not indispensable for the validity of the execution
proceedings; otherwise the implementation of the decision would be left entirely to the will of the
losing party who could frustrate and prevent the execution by making themselves scarce
● 7 Nov 2002: RTC dismissed Pascual’s petition for lack of merit:
○ Ownership of Almazan-Villamor had been recognized with finality; DENR had the obligation to
place her in possession, occupation, and enjoyment of her properties
○ Daquioag’s memo had not been issued in grave abuse of discretion
○ Pascual appealed to CA, who affirmed the RTC

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the CA erred in • A writ of execution should strictly conform to every particular of the judgment to
sustaining the decision be executed and not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it
of the RTC to dismiss go beyond the terms. Execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original
the petition for judgment or award
certiorari – NO • The phrase “placing the winning party, Catalina Almazan Villamor in the
premises of the land in question” was not expressly stated in the dispositive of
the RED decision, but the absence of that phrase did not render the directive
to enforce invalid because the directive was in full consonance with the
decision sought to be executed
• A judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, for it
embraces whatever is necessarily included therein or necessary thereto
• Under the RED decision, the three lots subject of Pascual’s FPA were covered by
the Titulo Propiedad (dated 1895) of Marcos Baria, the predecessor-in-interest of
Almazan-Villamor
Ø Baria had an Original Certificate of Title duly registered in the Register of
Deeds of Ilocos Norte
Ø Almazan-Villamor inherited the land from Baria, her late great grandfather,
from where she derives claim of ownership of the land
Ø Meanwhile, Pascual anchors his claim on the alleged deeds of sale executed
in 1983 by third persons not related nor privy to appellee, covering the lots in
 University of the Philippines College of Law
LTD [YM]
question which are portions of the titled property, one of which deeds of sale
is even inexistent
• Upon the final finding of the ownership in the judgment in favor of Almazan-
Villamor, the delivery of the possession of the property was deemed included in
the decision, considering that the claim itself of Pascual to the possession had
been based also on ownership
• Possession is an essential attribute of ownership. Whoever owns the property has
the right to possess it. Adjudication of ownership includes the delivery of
possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land
independently of her rejected claim of ownership
• Daquioag’s memo placing Almazan-Villamor in possession of the properties was
consistent with the RED’s decision, as affirmed by OP
• RTC correctly held that placing Almazan-Villamor in possession of the properties
was necessary to give effect to the order requiring Pascual to refrain from entering
the premises

RULING

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for its lack of merit; AFFIRMS the
decision promulgated on January 30, 2004; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.