This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision, but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.[30] In the present case, it would be redundant for PEA to go back to court and file an ejectment case simply to establish its right to possess the subject property. Contrary to De Leon's claims, the issuance of the writ of execution by the trial court did not constitute an unwarranted modification of this Court's decision in PEA v. CA, but rather, was a necessary complement thereto. Such writ was but an essential consequence of this Court's ruling affirming the nature of the subject parcel of land as public and at the same time dismissing De Leon's claims of ownership and possession. To further require PEA to file an ejectment suit to oust de Leon and his siblings from the disputed property would, in effect, amount to encouraging multiplicity of suits. | |||||