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.”