522

UPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Florentino vs. Rivera
*

G.R. No. 167968. January 23, 2006.

VICENTE FLORENTINO, petitioner, vs. MARIANO,

CYNTHIA, ADELFA, all surnamed RIVERA and
TEOFILA,
MAXIMO,
CIRIACO,
NORBERTO,
FELICIANO, JUAN GENEROSO, ANGEL, NOLASCO and
MARCOSA, all surnamed MENDOZA, respondents.
Remedial Law Judgments Finality of Judgments Once a
judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be
disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be and nothing further
can be done therewith except to execute it.It bears stressing that
a decision that has acquired finality, as in this case, becomes
immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. In short, once a
judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be
disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be and nothing further
can be done therewith except to execute it.
Same Same The operative part in every decision is the
dispositive portion or the fallo, and where there is conflict between
the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls.It is
settled rule that the operative part in every decision is the
dispositive portion or the fallo, and where there is conflict
between the fallo and the body of
_______________
*

FIRST DIVISION.

523

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006

Florentino vs. Rivera

523

the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that
the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely
a statement, ordering nothing.
Same Same Where the order of execution is not in harmony
with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order has
protanto no validity.More emphatically, Light Rail Transit
Authority v. Court of Appeals declares that it is the dispositive
part of the judgment that actually settles and declares the rights
and obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, and
authoritatively, notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent
statements in the body that may tend to confuse. In this regard,
it must be borne in mind that execution must conform to that
ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision
consequently, where the order of execution is not in harmony with
and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order has pro
tanto no validity.
Same Same Execution An effective and efficient
administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become
final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict.
It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the
suit and is the life of the law. A judgment, if left unexecuted,
would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.
Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. An effective and
efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment
has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits
of the verdict. Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme
calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to
put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any
attempt to prolong them.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
De Jesus & Associates for petitioner.
Peoples Law Office for respondents.
524

524

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Florentino vs. Rivera

YNARESSANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court
1
assails the February 10, 2005 Decision of the Court of

Appeals in CAG.R.
SP No. 62080 as well as its April 26,
2
2005 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
The issue for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals
overstepped the bounds of judicial discretion in reversing
the orders of the trial court which substantially amended
the dispositive portion of its final and executory judgment
by reducing the
damages awarded to respondents.
3
The facts as found by the appellate court are not
disputed:
The petition stemmed from a complaint filed before the RTC by
Mariano, Cynthia and Adelfa, all surnamed Rivera (hereinafter
Riveras) against Vicente Florentino (hereinafter private
respondent) and the latter as thirdparty plaintiff against Teofila
Mendoza, et al., as thirdparty defendants (hereinafter
Mendozas), for rescission, annulment, redemption, reconveyance
and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 5761M.
On October 20, 1986, the RTC rendered a decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered
for the plaintiffs Riveras and third parties defendants Mendozas
and adversely to the defendant and thirdparty plaintiff
Florentino
(aa) declaring the lease contract (Exh. G also marked Exh. 2)
terminated
(bb) ordering the defendant Florentino to turn over the
possession of the leased premises to the Riveras, with
Florentino being permitted to take all removable
_______________
1

Rollo, pp. 2632. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas

Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo

and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
2

Id., at p. 33.

Id., at pp. 2728.

525

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006

525

Florentino vs. Rivera

improvements at his expense in accordance with the lease
contract
(cc) ordering Florentino to pay the Riveras annual lease rental
of P500.00 for the year 1982 up to the time possession had
been delivered to the Riveras and to compensate in cash or

in kind the Riveras claim for damage for unrealized

annual harvest of 100 cavans from 1978 up to the present
(dd) ordering further Florentino to pay the Riveras and the
Mendozas attorneys fees in the amount of P20,000.00
(ee) dismissing for lack of merit the counterclaims in the
original complaint and the thirdparty complaint of
Florentino.
4
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, private respondent appealed the foregoing decision to
the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CAG.R. CV No. 15784,
which affirmed the same in a decision dated March 29, 1996.
Undaunted, private respondent filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the Supreme Court (SC), docketed as G.R. No.
140927, which the latter denied
in its Resolution dated February
5
9, 2000. Per entry of judgment issued by the Supreme Court, the
said Resolution became final and executory on June 1, 2000 and
was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment[s].
Consequently,
petitioners filed before the RTC a Motion for
6
Execution of its decision dated
October 20, 1986 which the latter
7
granted on August 14, 2000. 8Dissatisfied, the private respondent
moved for a reconsideration on the ground that the decision
sought to be enforced is vague and contrary to the pronouncement
made by the CA in the body of its decision that the petitioners
were deprived
_______________
4

See also CA Rollo, pp. 5354. Penned by Judge Jesus R. De Vega.

Id., at p. 84.

Id., at p. 82.

Id., at p. 87. Penned by Judge D. Roy Masadao, Jr.

Id., at pp. 8891.

526

526

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Florentino vs. Rivera

of only an area of 1,650 square meters or an annual harvest of

16.5 cavans.
On September 13, 2000, the RTC granted the said motion, the
decretal portion of which reads:
All told, going by the explanation enunciated by the Court of Appeals,
which this Court must pay obeisance to, paragraph (cc) of the decision
rendered by this Court on October 20, 1986 is hereby CLARIFIED to
such extent that the quantity of the damages which defendant Florentino

must pay the Riveras for unrealized annual harvest is 16.5 (instead of
100) cavans from 1978 onwards.
9

SO ORDERED.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the aforequoted

order was denied in the Order dated October 31, 2000.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial courts

ruling thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is
GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated September 13, 2000 and
October 31, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Branch 9,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is ordered to enforce
its Decision dated October 20, 1986 in accordance with its terms
and conditions.
10
SO ORDERED.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court gravely

abused its discretion in modifying the dispositive portion of
a final and executory judgment, since the modification
substantially reduced the amount of damages awarded to
herein respondents, i.e., from 100 cavans to only 16.5
cavans of palay, annually.
A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied
by the
Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated April 26,
11
2005.
_______________
9

Id., at p. 34.

10

Rollo, p. 31.

11

Id., at p. 33.
527

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006

527

Florentino vs. Rivera

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition insisting

that the challenged judgment and resolution of the
appellate tribunal is not in accordance with law or
applicable decisions of the Court because there existed an
ambiguity in the dispositive portion of the trial courts
decision and the text of the appellate courts judgment.
According to petitioner, the orders of the trial court merely
clarified and quantified the decision sought to be executed.
Considering that the crux of the controversy centers on a
perceived vagueness in the fallo of the trial courts decision,

it is necessary to restate the guidelines on the contents of a

proper dispositive
portion enunciated in Velarde v. Social
12
Justice Society, viz.:
In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition
should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or
denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs. The following
test of completeness may be applied. First, the parties should
know their rights and obligations. Second, they should know how
to execute the decision under alternative contingencies. Third,
there should be no need for further proceedings to dispose of the
issues. Fourth, the case should be terminated by according the
proper relief. The proper relief usually depends upon what the
parties seek in their pleadings. It may declare their rights and
duties, command the performance of positive prestations, or order
them to abstain from specific acts. The disposition must also
adjudicate costs.

In sum, petitioner argues that in substantially reducing the

amount of damages, by way of unrealized income, from 100
cavans to 16.5 cavans of palay annually, the trial court was
merely clarifying an ambiguity between the appellate
tribunals pronouncements in the body of its decision in
CAG.R. CV No. 15784 which states that
While it may be true that the only portion of the adjacent rice
land that was affected by the waste water coming from the
piggery is only 150 square meters, it must be noted, however, that
this 150
_______________
12

G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 283, 313.

528

528

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Florentino vs. Rivera

square meters was counted from the peripheral fence of the

piggery and poultry farm which is occupying 5,000 square meters
of prime agricultural land. In the final analysis, the Mendozas,
and later the Riveras, were deprived of an opportunity to cultivate
1,500 square meters of encroached land plus 150 square
meters
13
of land contaminated with decaying piggery sludge.

and paragraph (cc) of the dispositive portion of the trial

courts judgment which, among others, dictates that it is

(cc) ordering Florentino to pay the Riveras annual lease rental of

P500.00 for the year 1982 up to the time possession had been
delivered to the Riveras and to compensate in cash or in kind the
Riveras claim for damage for unrealized
annual harvest of 100
14
cavans from 1978 up to the present.

We disagree.
It bears stressing that a decision that has acquired
finality, as15 in this case, becomes immutable and
unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified
in any respect, even if the modification16is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law. In short, once a
judgment becomes final and executory, it can17 no longer be
disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be and18 nothing
further can be done therewith except to execute it.
It is settled rule that the operative part in every
decision is the dispositive portion or the fallo, and where
there is conflict between the fallo and the body of the
decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory
that the fallo is the
_______________
13

CA Rollo, p. 18.

14

Id., at pp. 5354.

15

Philippine Veterans Bank v. Estrella, 453 Phil. 45, 51 405 SCRA 168,

172 (2003).
16

Ramos v. Ramos, 447 Phil. 114, 119 399 SCRA 43, 47 (2003).

17

Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Rivera, G.R. No. 164914, October 5, 2005, 472

SCRA 189.
18

King Integrated Security Services, Inc. v. Gatan, 453 Phil. 293, 296

405 SCRA 376, 379 (2003).

529

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006

529

Florentino vs. Rivera

final order while the opinion 19in the body is merely a

statement, ordering nothing. We expounded on the
20
underlying reason behind this rule in Republic v. Nolasco
where, reiterating21 the earlier pronouncements made in
Contreras v. Felix, we said:
More to the point is another wellrecognized doctrine, that the
final judgment of the court as rendered in the judgment of the
court irrespective of all seemingly contrary statements in the
decision. A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The

latter is the informal expression of the views of the court and

cannot prevail against its final order or decision. While the two
may be combined in one instrument, the opinion forms no part of
the judgment. So, . . . there is a distinction between the findings
and conclusions of a court and its Judgment. While they may
constitute its decision and amount to the rendition of a judgment,
they are not the judgment itself. They amount to nothing more
than an order for judgment, which must, of course, be
distinguished from the judgment. (1 Freeman on Judgments, p.
6). At the root of the doctrine that the premises must yield to the
conclusion is perhaps, side by side with the needs of writing finis
to litigations, the recognition of the truth that the trained
intuition of the judge continually leads him to right results for
which he is puzzled to give unimpeachable legal reasons. It is an
everyday experience of those who study judicial decisions that the
results are usually sound, whether the reasoning from which the
results purport to flow is sound or not. (The Theory of Judicial
Decision, Pound, 36 Harv. Law Review, pp. 9, 51). It is not
infrequent that the grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact
views of the court, especially those of concurring justices in a
collegiate court. We often encounter in judicial decisions, lapses,
findings, loose statements and generalities which do not bear on
the issues or are apparently opposed to the otherwise sound and
considered result reached by the court as expressed in the
dispositive part, so called, of the decision.
_______________
19

Mendoza, Jr. v. San Miguel Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 158684, May 16,

2005, 458 SCRA 664, 676677.

20

G.R. No. 155108, April 27, 2005, 457 SCRA 400, 427428.

21

78 Phil. 570, 577578 (1947).

530

530

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Florentino vs. Rivera

Succinctly stated, where there is a conflict between the

dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the
dispositive portion controls
irrespective of what appears in
22
the body of the decision. While the body of the decision,
order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the
manner the courts reasoning preponderates, it is the
dispositive portion thereof that finally invests rights upon
the parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those 23rights,
and imposes the corresponding duties or obligations.

More emphatically,
Light Rail Transit Authority v.
24
Court of Appeals declares that it is the dispositive part of
the judgment that actually settles and declares the rights
and obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, and
authoritatively,
notwithstanding
the
existence
of
inconsistent statements in the body that may tend to
confuse. In this regard, it must be borne in mind that
execution must conform to that ordained or decreed in the
dispositive part of the decision consequently, where the
order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the
judgment25 which gives it life, the order has protanto no
validity.
It bears noting that in the foregoing cases cited, the
perceived inconsistencies referred to alleged ambiguities
found in the body of the same judgments. It is worse in this
case because what the trial court did was to amend
paragraph (cc) of the dispositive portion of its final and
executory October 20, 1986 verdict in order that the same
would conform to the disquisitions contained in the body of
the appellate courts judgment which had affirmed in full in
the decretal portion of
_______________
22

Olac v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84256, September 2, 1992, 213

SCRA 321, 328.

23

Globe Telecom, Inc. v. FlorendoFlores, 438 Phil. 756, 765 390 SCRA

201, 210 (2002).

24

G.R. Nos. 13927576 & 140949, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 125,

136.
25

Jose Clavano, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, 428

Phil. 208, 223 378 SCRA 172, 182183 (2002).

531

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006

531

Florentino vs. Rivera

the decision dated March 29, 1996 in CAG.R. CV No.

15784, the lower courts ruling. Suffice it to state that this
is anathema to the abovementioned rules. Hence, the
Court of Appeals could not be faulted for setting aside the
trial courts assailed orders of September 13, 2000 and
October 31, 2000 and ordering said court to enforce its
Decision dated October
20, 1986 in accordance with its
26
terms and conditions.
It has not escaped our attention that this is the second
time this case has reached us. As pointed out by the Court

of Appeals in its March 29, 1996 in CAG.R. CV No. 15784

Decision, the case at that
time had already been dragging
27
for almost two decades. What should have been a simple
implementation of an October 20, 1986 judgment in 2000
was delayed by the filing of a motion for reconsideration
questioning the computation of damages which petitioner
insists should be 16.5 instead of 100 cavans each year. This
issue had already been long28settled with the issuance of the
April 12, 2000 Resolution in G.R. No. 140927 denying
with finality petitioners motion for reconsideration.
It is to the interest of the public that there should be an
end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully and
fairly adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata is a rule
which pervades every wellregulated system of
jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied
in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public
policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the
State that there should be an end to litigationrepublicae
ut sit litium, and (2) the hardship on the individual that he
should be vexed twice for the same causenemo debet bis
vexari et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject
the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of
individuals and prefer the gratification of
_______________
26

Rollo, p. 31.

27

CA Rollo, p. 19.

28

Id., at p. 56.
532

532

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Florentino vs. Rivera

the litigious disposition on the part of suitors 29to the

preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.
It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and
end of the suit and is the life of the law. A judgment, if left
unexecuted, would30 be nothing but an empty victory for the
prevailing party. Litigation must end sometime and
somewhere. An effective and efficient administration of
justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the
winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict.
Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme
calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they
are to put an end to controversies,
courts should frown
31
upon any attempt to prolong them.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February

10, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP
No. 62080, and its April 26, 2005 Resolution, are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (C.J.), AustriaMartinez, Callejo, Sr.
and ChicoNazario, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Note.A judgment is not confined to what appears on
the face of the decision but also covers those necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto. (Saado vs. Court of
Appeals, 356 SCRA 546 [2001])
o0o
_______________
29

Heirs of the Late Faustina Adalid v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

122202, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 27, 41.

30

Garcia v. Yared, 447 Phil. 444, 453 399 SCRA 331, 338339 (2003).

31

Ho v. Lacsa, G.R. No. 142664, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 92.

533

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.