FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, PETITIONER VS. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO; PACIFICO LASTRADO, VICENTE LASTRADO, CORNELIO LA TORRE AND DIO…

Buenaventura versus Fernan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Francisco Buenaventura against Judge Wenceslao L. Fernan of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and the defendants Pacifico Lastrado and others. Buenaventura had won a final judgment from the Court of Appeals awarding him possession of a portion of his land, and he came to the Supreme Court because the trial judge, in the course of execution, annulled the writs that would have ejected the defendants and instead directed the sheriff to eject them from a different portion. The case matters because it fixes the rule that what is executed is the dispositive part of the judgment, and that a commissioner may be appointed to ascertain the identity of the land when the judgment is ambiguous.

Procedural History

The case began as a complaint for forcible entry filed by Francisco Buenaventura against Pacifico Lastrado and others in the justice of the peace court of Lambunao, Iloilo. Buenaventura won in the inferior court but lost in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. He won again in the Court of Appeals, which found that the defendants had encroached upon a portion of his property and ordered them to vacate it immediately. The records were remanded to the trial court for execution. Several writs of execution were issued and several orders of execution were entered, but the defendants refused to comply. On July 2, 1958, the defendants moved for the first time for reconsideration of the execution orders. Judge Wenceslao L. Fernan, convinced that the writs were issued in excess of jurisdiction, annulled them and issued another writ commanding the sheriff to eject the defendants from the southern portion of the plaintiff's land. After failing to obtain reconsideration, Buenaventura filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Francisco Buenaventura claimed to be the rightful possessor of a parcel of land in Lambunao, Iloilo, and sued Pacifico Lastrado and others for forcible entry. The justice of the peace court ruled for Buenaventura, but the Court of First Instance of Iloilo ruled against him. The Court of Appeals reversed and declared Buenaventura entitled to possession of the controverted portion, ordering the defendants to vacate it immediately and to pay the amount fixed in the decision, with costs.

When the case was remanded for execution, the parties could not agree on the exact area and boundaries of the land adjudicated. Buenaventura claimed it was an eight-hectare portion on the west, the same portion delivered to the defendants when the justice of the peace lifted an injunction after the defendants filed a counterbond. The defendants insisted it was only a three-hectare portion on the south, as found by the Court of Appeals in the body of its decision, and that their houses stood outside that portion.

To settle the dispute, Judge Hilarion Jarencio, upon the agreement of the parties, commissioned Surveyor Ramon Sirilan to determine the exact boundaries and area of the land. The surveyor reported that the portion occupied by the defendants, on which their houses stood, was on the western part and had an area of 87,880 square meters, more or less. No opposition was filed, and the trial court approved the report and ordered execution on the basis thereof. The defendants still refused to comply. Only on July 2, 1958 did they move for reconsideration of the execution orders, and Judge Fernan then annulled the writs and ordered the sheriff to eject them from the southern portion instead.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court, in executing the final judgment of the Court of Appeals, may appoint a commissioner to ascertain the exact area and boundaries of the land adjudicated to the plaintiff.
• Whether or not the trial court may order the execution of the judgment on the basis of the commissioner's findings, even if those findings differ from the area and location stated in the body of the appellate court's decision.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 34, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court provides:

The court may, upon the application of either party or of its own motion, direct a reference of a commissioner when a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or of carrying a judgment or order into effect.

This provision is the basis for the trial court's authority to appoint a surveyor to determine the exact area and location of the disputed land for the purpose of carrying the final judgment into effect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appointment of the commissioner was proper. The authority and power of the lower court to appoint a commissioner to ascertain the exact area and location of the disputed land, for the purpose of carrying into effect the final judgment of the Court of Appeals awarding possession to Buenaventura, rests on Rule 34, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court. The Court noted its earlier rulings that supplementary proceedings under this rule are proper where the final judgment is ambiguous and the identity of the res is not ascertainable from it, and that although a judgment determining the substantial merits is final for purposes of appeal, further proceedings may be necessary in its execution, or incidental matters may remain to be settled. Here, the survey was conducted in the presence of all the parties, and the commissioner found that the land was an eight-hectare portion on the west, as the plaintiff contended. The defendants offered no objection to the report, and it was approved and ordered executed. If they disagreed with the report and the order approving it, their remedy was a seasonable appeal, which they did not take.

On the second issue, the Court held that the findings of the commissioner on the area and location of the land superseded and substituted whatever findings the Court of Appeals made on the same question in its decision. It therefore became immaterial, in the execution of the judgment, that the appellate court found in the body of its decision that the converted land was only a three-hectare portion on the south. The Court stressed that the judgment or fallo is found in the dispositive part of the final order or decision, and that the dispositive portion is the controlling factor for purposes of res judicata. Only what is ordained and decreed in the dispositive portion becomes subject to execution. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads:

We, therefore, reverse the decision appealed from and declare plaintiff entitled to the possession of the portion of land herein controverted and, therefore, defendants are ordered to vacate it immediately and to pay the amount immediately fixed above to plaintiff, with costs against them.

To go along with the respondents' insistence that they should be ejected only from the southern portion would render the very judgment of the Court of Appeals ineffective, since it is on an eight-hectare portion on the west that the defendants had illegally settled and on which their houses stand. Having agreed to the commissioner's findings, the respondents are bound by them and cannot be heard to dispute their truthfulness or escape their legal consequences.

Doctrine

The judgment or fallo is found in the dispositive part of the final order or decision, and that dispositive portion is the controlling factor for purposes of res judicata. Only what is ordained and decreed in the dispositive portion becomes subject to execution. When the final judgment is ambiguous and the identity of the res is not ascertainable from it, the trial court may, upon the application of either party or on its own motion, direct a reference of a commissioner under Rule 34, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, in order to carry the judgment into effect. The commissioner's findings on the area and location of the land, once approved and unopposed, supersede the findings stated in the body of the appellate court's decision, and the parties who agreed to the reference are bound by the commissioner's findings and cannot dispute their truthfulness.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the order of Judge Fernan dated July 25, 1958, and ordered that execution issue pursuant to the orders of the lower court of January 18 and May 27, 1958, with costs against the respondents Pacifico Lastrado and others. Buenaventura won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: what is executed is the dispositive part of the judgment, and a commissioner may be appointed under Rule 34 to ascertain the identity of the land when the judgment is ambiguous. Examiners like to use this case on execution of judgments, the finality and res judicata effect of the dispositive portion, and the binding effect of a commissioner's report that the parties agreed to and did not appeal.