This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-02-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This Court is not unmindful of a number of decisions[42] wherein the Court affirmed writs of execution awarding possession of land, notwithstanding that the decisions sought to be executed did not order its delivery to the parties. In Perez v. Evite,[43] the Court ruled that where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the delivery of possession of the land should be considered included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated party's claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership. Moreover, in Baluyut v. Guiao ,[44] the Court held that a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision, but also covers those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. The foregoing ruling, however, find no application to the case at bar, as it is necessary that the decision sought to be executed must have at the very least awarded ownership of the lands to the parties. To reiterate, respondents are not the owners of the land in dispute, but the State. | |||||