FACTS:
The heirs of the late Juan Reyes filed an application for registration of the parcels of land allegedly inherited by them from Juan Reyes. A complaint for reconveyance of properties where filed by Vencilao et.al. Vencilao et al. alleged that they are the lawful owners of their respective parcels of land including the improvements thereon either by purchase or inheritance and have been in possession publicly, continuously, peacefully and adversely under the concept of owners for more than thirty (30) years tacked with the possession of their predecessors-in-interest. Those parcels of land were included in the parcels of land applied for registration by the heirs of Juan Reyes, either by mistake or fraud and with the intention of depriving them of their rights of ownership and possession without their knowledge, not until the last part of 1960 when the heirs of Juan Reyes through their agents, attempted to enter those parcels of land claiming that they now belong to the heirs of Juan Reyes. Upon the death of administratrix Bernardina Vda. De Luspo (Juan Reyes’ heir} a Transfer of Certificate of tilte was issued to several persons. A writ of possession was issued by the trial court against Vencilao et al. Petitioners refused to sign and vacate. Mario Oligalve (Juan Reyes) filed a petition for contempt. An order finding the petitioners where issued. Petitioners filed the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a writ of possession maybe issued to anyone who unlawfully and adversely occupying the land during the registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
RULING:
In a registration case, the judgment confirming the title of the applicant and ordering its registration in his name necessarily carried with it the delivery of possession, which is an inherent element of the right of ownership. The issuance of the writ of possession is, therefore, sanctioned by existing laws in this jurisdiction and by the generally accepted principle upon which the administration of justice rests. A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
EDILBERTO BERNAS and BALDONERA BULQUIRIN and TEOFILO BERANO, petitioners, vs.
THE HONORABLE PELAYO V. NUEVO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, CIRIACO ABELLA VITO, CLERK OF COURT and SHERIFF EX-OFFICIO OF CAPIZ, ET AL.,
respondents CASE NO: 127 SCRA 399
CHAPTER: SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP, P. 280 PONENTE: J. GUTTIEREZ, JR.
FACTS:
Petitioners, Edilberto Bernas, Baldonera Bulquirin, and Teofilo Berano ask that the order of respondent Judge Pelayo V. Nuevo and the writ of possession be declared null and void. Petitioner Bellosillo prays that the SC nullify the order of respondent Judge Oscar Leviste which set aside the order of Judge Nuevo. The Heirs of Pascual Bellosillo and Francisca Besa, represented by Silvestre Bellosillo, filed a complaint against defendants Edilberto Bernas, Baldonera Bulquirin and Teofilo Berano for recovery of possession of a 33 1/3 hectare parcel of land known as Lot 3382.Judge Pelayo Nuevo granted the writ of possession applied for by plaintiffs after pre-trial and hearing of the motion for the issuance of said writ. Meanwhile, the sala vacated by Judge Nuevo was filled through the appointment of Judge Oscar Leviste. While the petition assailing the order granting the writ of possession was pending before this Court, Judge Leviste, acted on the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants and issued an order declaring null and void the writ of possession issued by former Judge Nuevo. In a subsequent order dated April 20, 1982, the same Judge also ordered the defendants to be place in possession of the property in question ISSUE: Whether a writ will issue against persons taking possession after issuance of final decree, or not? HELD:
It is a settled ruled that when parties against whom a writ of possession is sought have been in possession of the land for at least ten years, and they entered into possession apparently after the issuance of the final decree, and none of them had been a party in the registration proceedings, the writ of possession will not issue. A person who took possession of the land after final adjudication of the same in registration proceedings cannot be summarily ousted through a writ of possession secured by a mere motion and that regardless of any title or lack of title of persons to hold possession of the land in question, they cannot be ousted without giving them their day in court in proper independent proceedings.
In the case at bar, the defendants-petitioners had been in possession of the lot since 1960 under an alleged lease contract and were not a party to the original registration case of the same way back in 1930. This notwithstanding, the writ was issued after pre-trial and hearing of the motion for the issuance of the writ only and not after final adjudication of the rights of the parties over the lot in controversy. Therefore, it was a patent error on the part of respondent Judge Nuevo to issue the questioned writ. The rule is "when other persons have subsequently entered the property, claiming the right of possession, the owner of the registered property or his successors in interest cannot dispossess such persons by merely asking for a writ of possession. The remedy is to resort to the courts of justice and institute a separate action for unlawful entry or detainer or for reinvidicatory action, only after judgment has been rendered can the prevailing party secure a writ of possession to enforce his right over the disputed lot.
“CATALINO MAGLASANG vs. CIRILO MACEREN” CASE NO.: L-1917, 83 Phil 637
CHAPTER: SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP, p. 281 PONENTE: Perfecto
FACTS:
Maglasang secured the registration in his name lots No. 8898 and 5106 of the cadastral survey of Ormoc, Leyte. He sought from the trial court a writ of possession against several persons. Trial court ordered the issuance of the writ of possession against Alejandra Conde and Santiago Tumolak (respondents) with respect to lot no. 5106, it appearing that said persons were claimants-oppositors and that their claims were dismissed, but denied the petition as regards the other persons who took possession of the lots in question after final adjudication of the case upon the theory that said persons cannot be expelled from their possession by a mere motion unless they are brought to courts of justice by independent ordinary action, invoking said effect the doctrine laid down by the SC in Yumul vs. Rivera and Dizon.
Maglasang now seeks from the SC mandatory order to compel the respondent judge to issue a writ of possession against respondents regarding whom the latter denied the issuance of such writ.
ISSUE
WON a writ of possession may be issued against persons who took possession of the lots after issuance of final decree?
RULING:
No, Petition denied
• Respondent judge acted correctly in refusing to issue the writ of possession prayed for.
• The person who took possession of the lots in question after the final adjudication of the same in registration proceedings cannot be summarily ousted through a writ of possession secured by a mere motion.
• Regardless of any title or lack of title of said persons to hold possession of the lots in question, they cannot be ousted without giving them their day in court in a proper independent proceeding.
ALFREDO FRIAS vs. ANASTACIA ESQUIVEL
CASE NO: G.R. No. L-24679. October 30, 1975. 67 SCRA 487
CHAPTER: Remedies