Perez v.

Evite

The Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered a judgment dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs
(action to quiet title) and declaring defendants owners of the land in question. The judgment was
affirmed by the CA. Thereafter the defendants ordered its execution to which the plaintiffs averred
saying that the decision merely declared the defendants owners of the property and did not order the
delivery therefore putting them at variance with the decision which is null and void.

Issue: WON it is proper for defendants to vacate the property.

In support of this, the plaintiffs relied on two cases which stated that ownership is different from
possession. A person may be declared owner, but he may not be entitled to possession; that a
declaration of ownership does not mean a direction to surrender it to him.

However the court noted that the pronouncement was made having in mind cases wherein the actual
possessor has a valid right over the property enforceable even against the owner thereof.
“As example, we gave the cases of tenants and lessees. However, it is our view that the above
doctrine may not be invoked in instances where no such right may be appreciated in favor of the
possessor. In the instant case there spears in the appealed order of June 30, 1959, the specific finding of
the trial court that "the plaintiffs have not given any reason why they are retaining the possession ID the
property"

Since these are factual questions, they cannot be reviewed on appeal. Moreover, a judgment is not
confined to what appears upon the face of the decision, but also those necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto. Considering that herein plaintiffs-appellants have no other claim to possession of the
property apart from their claim of ownership which was rejected by the lower court consequently has
no right to remain thereon after such ownership was adjudged to defendants-appellees, the delivery of
possession of the land should be considered included in the decision.