FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-60800. August 31, 1982.]

JAIME PELEJO and BELEN C. ZABALLERO , petitioners, vs. THE

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PATERNO C. ZABALLERO and
AURORA GONZALES , respondents.

Domingo M. Ballon and Ernesto V. Plantilla for petitioners.

Reynaldo B. Aralar for private respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioners led a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Sale, Title, Reconveyance and
Damages (Civil Case No. 124771), alleging that the Deed of Sale petitioners executed in
favor of respondents, is merely simulated to accommodate the latter in obtaining a loan
from the hank. The complaint was dismissed on the motion of private respondents
pointing out that the complaint states no cause of action. No appeal was taken by
petitioners and instead another complaint but with the same cause of action was led
(Civil Case No, 140996), On the ground of res judicata, the said complaint was dismissed
and such dismissal was appealed to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, respondents led
Civil Case No. 14435, captioned "Accion Reinvendicatoria or Publiciana," the dismissal of
which was appealed to the Supreme Court, Thereafter, upon private respondents' motion
for the issuance of a writ of possession in Civil Case No. 124771, the Court of First
Instance granted the motion. The Court of Appeals sustained the lower court, hence, the
present petition.
The Supreme Court upheld the position of petitioners. It held that only that portion of a
decision ordained or decreed in the dispositive part may be executed. It pointed out that
the complaint in Civil Case No. 124771 was not decided on the merits and the dismissal as
shown by its dispositive portion is predicated on the private respondents' motion to
dismiss.

SYLLABUS

REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; ONLY DISPOSITIVE PORTION MAY BE

EXECUTED. — Execution is the remedy provided by law for the enforcement of a judgment
and 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 (Rubles vs. Timarin, et al., 107 Phil.
809).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

RELOVA , J : p

In this petition for certiorari, spouses Jaime Pelejo and Belen C. Zaballero pray that the
Writ of Possession, dated March 30, 1982, issued by the lower court be declared null and
void for having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction and with a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and that the private respondents and the
Sheriff of Manila be enjoined from enforcing the said Writ of Possession.
On July 3, 1979, herein petitioners led Civil Case No. 124771 for Annulment of Deed, Title,
Reconveyance and Damages. According to petitioners, respondents Paterno C. Zaballero
and his wife Aurora Gonzales Zaballero approached them sometime in 1974 for
assistance. They borrowed the title TCT No. T-49125, covering the property so that they
could have a collateral for a loan from the Monte de Piedad Bank, the proceeds of which
would nance respondents' rice mill business in San Juan, Batangas. To accommodate
herein private respondents, who are the brother and sister-in-law, respectively of petitioner
Belen C. Zaballero, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage was
executed in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Paterno C. Zaballero. The Zaballeros took the Deed of
Sale to mean what it stated and had the title transferred to their names. As a consequence,
TCT No. T-49125 was cancelled and TCT No. 130117 was issued in the names of the
Zaballeros.
In their answer to the complaint, respondents denied the allegations of simulated sale and
claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was properly executed in good faith before a
notary public of the Philippine National Bank; that the P400,000.00 stated in the deed was
paid to herein petitioners while the P200,000.00 PNB Mortgage was eventually paid to the
bank; that the P600,000.00 was a fair price for the properties in 1974 when the
conveyance was executed; that petitioner Belen Zaballero, an older sister of respondent
Paterno Zaballero, now regrets having sold the property for only P600,000.00 because a
relative volunteered to help her negotiate a one-million peso loan on the property as
collateral.
On August 22, 1980, the trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint but allowing
the petitioners to le an amended complaint within ten (10) days. The original complaint
was dismissed upon motion of the private respondents on the ground that it did not state
a cause of action, and assuming there was a cause of action, it was already barred by
statute. The petitioners led their amended complaint after September 18, 1980 which
was beyond the ten-day period.
On October 14, 1980, the trial judge denied the admission of the amended complaint in an
order which reads:
"Acting on the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint as well as the opposition
thereto, and it appearing that said amendment is studiedly not in accordance with
what the parties have agreed upon in open Court, which is inimitably for collection
of a Sum of Money, the same should be, as it is hereby, DENIED."

This order dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 124771 was not appealed or
otherwise elevated to an appellate court. Instead, petitioners led a new complaint for
"Annulment of Deed, Title, Reconveyance and Damages" which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 140996 and assigned to another branch of the Manila Court of First Instance.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 On September 9, 1981, Judge Fidel P. Purisima of Branch XX dismissed the new case (Civil
Case No. 140996) on the ground that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 124771 and the
subsequent denial of the Motion to Admit Complaint amounted to res judicata barring the
new complaint.
The dismissal of the second case (Civil Case No. 140996) was appealed to the Court of
Appeals where it is still pending resolution.
In the meantime, respondents Paterno Zaballero and Aurora Gonzales Zaballero led Civil
Case No. 144435, captioned "Accion Reinvendicatoria or Publiciana, with Collection and
Damages," but the same was dismissed by Court of First Instance Judge Maximo A.
Maceren on February 4, 1982 on the ground that it was actually an action for illegal
detainer which is not within the jurisdiction of this court.
The dismissal of said Civil Case No. 144435 was appealed by private respondents to this
Court where it is still pending action.
Thereafter, herein private respondents led a motion for the issuance of a Writ of
Possession in Civil Case No, 124771. On March 30, 1982, Judge Abelardo Dayrit of the
Court of First Instance granted the motion and issued a Writ of Possession "ordering the
Sheriff of the City of Manila to place in possession the herein defendants Paterno C.
Zaballero and Aurora Gonzales Zaballero, in the premises at 541 M. V. delos Santos Street,
Sampaloc, Manila, and eject therefrom the herein plaintiffs Jaime Pelejo and Belen
Zaballero Pelejo, and all persons claiming under said plaintiffs."
It is the position of herein petitioner that the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction
and with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the writ of possession because Civil
Case No. 124771 was not decided on the merits and the rights and obligations of the
parties were not de ned. They alleged that there was no decision on who the owners were
in the order dismissing the complaint.
The Court of Appeals, sustaining the lower court when it issued the writ of possession,
said:
"The order in Civil Case No. 124771 was to dismiss the complaint. The
respondent Judge obviously believed that to issue a writ of execution to
implement an order dismissing a complaint was a super uity. The effect of a writ
of execution would have been the same.
"The very arguments of the petitioners support the action taken by the respondent
Judge. According to the petitioners, Judge Dayrit could not issue a writ of
execution because Civil Case No. 124771 was dismissed without determining the
rights of the parties and hence no judgment was rendered. They argue that no writ
of execution may issue because a writ of execution must conform to that
ordained in the dispositive part of the decision. If this argument is right and no
writ of execution may issue, the action taken by the respondent Judge could not
be error, much less grave abuse of discretion. How else could an order of
dismissal, long nal and executory, be given meaning and effect? What the
petitioners really seek to achieve through this petition for a writ of certiorari is to
delay execution of a nal and executory order while they le case after case in
attempts to reopen the issue of simulated deed of sale. A petition for certiorari
cannot take the place of a long lost appeal. It cannot be used to delay or prevent
the logical consequences of an order that has become nal and of issues that
have become res judicata because of a failure to appeal.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 "The ex-parte motion led on April 19, 1981 urging Us to order restoration of
possession is untenable in the light of Our above findings."

There is merit in the petition of the Pelejos.

Execution is the remedy provided by law for the enforcement of a judgment and 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 (Robles vs. Timario, et. al., 107 Phil. 809).
In the case at bar, the trial judge issued the writ of possession in Civil Case No. 124771
which was dismissed in an Order, dated August 22, 1980. In other words, the complaint for
"Annulment of Deed of Sale, Title, Reconveyance and Damages" was not decided on the
merits because the order states:

"Acting on defendants" Motion to Dismiss for the grounds therein alleged which
the Court nds to be well taken the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without
pronouncement as to costs. However, considering that defendant have no
objection to plaintiffs amending their complaint, plaintiffs may do so, provided
they file in Court an amended complaint within ten (10) days from today.
"SO ORDERED."

WHEREFORE, nding the petition for certiorari justi able, the Writ of Possession, dated
March 30, 1982, having been issued by the lower court with grave abuse of discretion, is
hereby NULLIFIED; and, the private respondents and the City Sheriff of Manila are enjoined
from enforcing the said Writ of Possession.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Vasquez, JJ., concur.
Teehankee (Chairman), J., in the result.
Makasiar, J., on leave.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com