Writ of possession defined; limitations.

See - The Service And Execution Of A Special Judgment, Such As A Favorable Judgment In Mandamus Should Be Deemed To Be Limited To Directing Compliance With The Judgment, And In Case Of Disobedience, To Have The Disobedient Person Required By Law To Obey Such Judgment Punished With Contempt... - The Lawyer's Post


"x x x.

A writ of possession is defined as a “writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the person entitled under the judgment.”⁠9 It may be issued under the following instances: (a) land registration proceedings under Section 17⁠10 of Act No. 496,⁠11 otherwise known as “The Land Registration Act;” (b) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (c) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7⁠12 of Act No. 3135,⁠13 as amended by Act No. 4118;⁠14 and (d) in execution sales.⁠15 Proceeding therefrom, the issuance of a writ of possession is only proper in order to execute judgments ordering the delivery of specific properties to a litigant, in accordance with Section 10, Rule 39,⁠16 of the Rules of Court.


As already discussed, the judgment in SCA No. V-7075 sought to be enforced in the case at bar only declared valid the auction sale where petitioner bought the subject lots, and accordingly ordered the City Treasurer to issue a Final Bill of Sale to petitioner. Since the said judgment did not order that the possession of the subject lots be vested unto petitioner, the RTC Br. 15 substantially varied the terms of the aforesaid judgment – and thus, exceeded its authority in enforcing the same – when it issued the corresponding writs of possession and demolition to vest unto petitioner the possession of the subject lots. It is well-settled that orders pertaining to execution of judgments must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be executed. As such, it may not vary, or go beyond, the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.⁠17 Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has no validity.⁠18 Had the petitioner pursued an action for ejectment or reconveyance, the issuance of writs of possession and demolition would have been proper; but not in a special civil action for mandamus, as in this case.


Perforce, the CA correctly ruled that the Writ of Possession dated June 19, 2009 and the Writ of Demolition dated August 28, 2009 issued in this case are null and void for having been rendered beyond the authority of RTC Br. 15 in enforcing the judgment in SCA No. V-7075.

X x x.”

G.R. Nos. 209672-74, January 14, 2015, EDMUND SIA, PETITIONER, VS. WILFREDO ARCENAS, FERNANDO LOPEZ, AND PABLO RAFANAN, RESPONDENTS.