PERFECTO FABULAR, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND VICENTE FLANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner filed an application for registration of title under Act
No. 496 before the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
Branch VII, over one parcel of land which measures an area of 1,016 square
meters, located at Hilongos, Leyte.  The application which was docketed as L.R. Case No. N-15 was opposed by private respondent
Vicente Elandez. 
After trial and hearing, the court a quo rendered a
decision dated March 17, 1971 in favor of petitioner, confirming his ownership
of the property and ordering him to compensate private respondent the amount of
P10.00 corresponding to the two (2) non-fruit bearing coconut trees which were
found to have been planted by private respondent’s father on the said property.

The decision having become final, the court a quo, upon motion of petitioner, ordered on July 9, 1975 the issuance of a writ of execution.  On July
17, 1975 the writ of execution was issued and petitioner paid
private respondent the amount of P10.00 as ordained in the decision.

Two (2) months after the issuance of the writ of execution and
more than four (4) years from the promulgation of the decision, private
respondent filed a motion dated September
3, 1975 for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision.  In an order dated October 10, 1975 the lower court modified the
writ of execution stating that private respondent owns eight (8) coconut trees
and ordered petitioner to pay the former the sum of P20.00 per coconut tree.

A motion for reconsideration dated November 18, 1975 was filed by petitioner alleging that the decision of March 17, 1971 could no longer be
modified because the same has long become final and had in fact been
executed.  The motion having been denied
in an order dated April 20, 1976,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the
Court of Appeals.  On September 12, 1979 the said petition
was dismissed for lack of merit.

The Court of Appeals said that a review of the decision of the
court a quo discloses that private respondent had planted the
eight coconut trees.  Hence, the
challenged order therefore conforms with the substance
of the decision and is not an amendment thereof and is in conformity with
Article 448 of the New Civil Code which provides:

“Article 448.  The owner of the land on which anything has
been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate
as his own the works, sowing or planting after payment of the indemnity
provided for in articles 546 and 548, x x x.”

The main issue raised by petitioner is whether the Court of
Appeals committed an error in sustaining the trial court in the issuance of the
order dated October 10, 1975.

The issue should be resolved in the affirmative.  We find for the petitioner.

The judgment in this case
had long become final and had in fact been executed.  It is now beyond the power of the lower
court, or of this Court for that matter, to modify the same.  Settled is the rule that after a judgment has
become final, no additions can be made thereto, and nothing can be done
therewith except its execution; otherwise, there would be no end to
litigations, thus setting at naught the main role of courts of justice, which
is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace
and order, by setting justiceable controversies with
finality.^[1]

We do not agree with the ruling of the respondent Court of
Appeals that the questioned order dated October 10, 1975 of the lower court conforms with the
substance of the decision of March 17,
1971 and therefore is not an amendment thereof.  It is settled that the only portion of a
decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or decreed in
the dispositive part. 
Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered
as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and while they may serve as
guide or enlightenment to determine the ratio decidendi,
what is controlling is what appears in the dispositive
part of the decision.^[2]

In the present case, the dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision of March
17, 1971 ordered petitioner to com­pensate private respondent only the amount
of P10.00 corresponding to the two (2) non-fruit bearing coconut trees.  Since the decision is already final and has
been executed, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in modifying
the writ of execution by ordering petitioner to pay private respondent for
eight (8) coconut trees at P20.00 per tree.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals
is hereby reversed and another one entered declaring that lower court’s orders
dated October 10, 1975 and
April 20, 1976 null and
void.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, (Chairman), in the result.

Aquino, J., see
concurrence.

^[1]
Fariscal Vda. de Emnas vs. Emnas, 95 SCRA 474.

^[2]
Robles vs. Timario, 107
Phil, 809.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}