MAYOR MARCIAL
VARGAS AND ENGR. RAYMUNDO DEL ROSARIO VS. FORTUNATO CAJUCOM, G.R. No.
171095, June 22, 2015.
“x x x.
But even if the
decision was entirely silent on the matter, this Court has held that a judgment
is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision, but extends to those necessarily included
therein or necessary thereto.30 In the
case at bar, the dispositive part of the trial court’s decision did not specify
which of the alternative duties the public officers were to perform, but since
the decision itself factually states that the plaintiff sues for the removal of
the subject structures, and that the structures are built on a public highway,
then it follows that only one of the alternative duties – that of demolition –
is capable of enforcement. As demolition stands as the only and necessary way
to effectuate the judgment, then it is what the execution of the judgment
should consist of. The writ of execution and a companion writ of demolition, if
later prayed for and issued by the trial court, are just a natural consequence
of and a necessary means to enforce the said decision.31
X x x.”
