JOSE CLAVANO, INC. v. HLURB and SPS. TENAZAS| G.R. No. 143781.

February 27, 2002| BELLOSILLO, J

Petitioner: JOSE CLAVANO, INC

Respondent : HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD and SPS. ENRIQUE and VENUS TENAZAS
FACTS
 Clavano sold a house and lot in Cebu to Sps. Tenazas, who paid 50% of the purchase price.
Alleging the spouses’ default, Clavano refused to accept their subsequent payments and
instead sued them for rescission of the contract and forfeiture of all prior payments made.
This was however dismissed.
 The spouses filed a specific performance complaint with the HLURB Cebu Regional Office
against Clavano to compel it to honor the contract. They asked for judgment compelling
Clavano to accept their payment and to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor, plus
damages. The HLURB Regional Office ruled in favor of the spouses, and this was upheld by
the HLURB in its Decision, and the Office of the President. The petitions of Clavano in the
CA and the SC were not given merit due to its failure to comply with rules on civil procedure.
 When the HLURB Decision lapsed into finality, the HLURB Regional Office issued a Writ of
Execution. Eventually, the spouses complained via a motion to the HLURB, alleging that
there were defects in the housing unit, that the Deed of Absolute Sale was unnotarized, and
that the TCT was still in Clavano’s name. They also asked Clavano to pay the corresponding
expenses re: notarization fees and taxes, among others. HLURB granted this motion via an
Order.
 Clavano contests this, saying that the HLURB Order amended the final HLURB Decision
which, according to Clavano, has been fully executed. Clavano also pointed out that in the
contract, it was agreed upon that the spouses will be the ones to answer for the expenses
involved in the transfer of title. HLURB, in another Order, denied Clavano’s motion for
reconsideration. The CA upheld the HLURB Orders, and so the Sheriff demanded from
Clavano the reimbursements sought by the spouses.

ISSUE & HOLDING

WON HLURB can rightfully order Clavano to pay said expenses. NO, since this is not part of the
HLURB Decision

 Since the HLURB Decision has become final, the agency is left with no other authority
but to enforce the decision’s dispositive portion, which it can no longer amend,
modify, or alter in a manner affecting the merits of the judgment. Clavano is correct in
availing of the remedy of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
 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.
Subsequent HLURB orders requiring Clavano to pay for the expenses incurred do not fall
within the ambit of the HLURB Decision. The Orders cannot be considered part of the
decision which must be executed against Clavano. The obligation to pay for such expenses
is unconnected with and distinct from the obligations to execute and deliver the deed of
absolute sale and the certificate of title.
 The HLURB or the CA cannot order Clavano at this late stage to reimburse the charges and
fees relative to the transfer of title when the spouses did not allege this obligation nor
pray for this relief and did not attempt to prove this cause of action. Sps. Tenaza only
sought the enforcement of the mutually binding contract to sell so that they could finally own
the house and lot but did not ask for the transfer of the title at Clavano’s expense.
 Likewise, the assailed Orders do not involve supervening events where the court a quo
is allowed to admit evidence of new facts and circumstances and thereafter to suspend
execution of the judgment and grant relief as may be warranted which may or may not result
 in its modification. The responsibility for the expenses for registering and titling the subject
house and lot - a matter pre-dating the filing of the complaint with the HLURB, and in fact,
written in the contract to sell - does not qualify as a supervening event.
 The foregoing matters, in addition to alleging them in the complaint, should have also
been heard during the trial on the merits before the HLURB where the parties could have
proved their respective claims. However, believing that the assailed rulings were merely part
of the execution of the HLURB Decision, the HLURB instead precipitately resolved the issue
in favor of the spouses without notice and hearing.
 Since the Orders are a wide departure from and a material amplification of the final
and at least executory HLURB Decision, they are pro tanto void and absolutely
unenforceable for any purpose. After the decision has become final and executory, it
can no longer be amended or corrected except for clerical errors or mistakes.
 Under the circumstances, SC has no authority to unsettle the final and perhaps
satisfactorily executed HLURB Decision. The general power of courts to amend their
judgments or orders to make them conformable to justice cannot be invoked to correct an
oversight or error as a judicial error may not be considered as a mere ambiguity, curable
without a proper proceeding filed before the judgment had become final.
 The spouses are barred from raising the issue either in the instant case or in another
action. Under Sec. 47, Rule 39, a final and executory judgment is conclusive upon any matter
“that could have been raised in relation thereto.”

Disposition: Petition for certiorari GRANTED.