Demorar v. Ibañez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Lot 2529 in cadastral case No. 88, G.L.R.O. 1565, Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Petitioner Teodora Demorar claimed ownership of this lot, which was not contested by any other party. Following a default order, evidence was presented and admitted, leading to the adjudication of the lot to Demorar. 2. Procedural History: After the decision adjudicating Lot 2529 to Teodora Demorar became final and executory, Demorar filed a motion for a writ of possession on February 10, 1954, seeking to eject Gregorio Poras, who was allegedly in unlawful possession of the lot. Respondent Judge Roman Ibañez denied this motion on February 14, 1954, and subsequently denied Demorar's motion for reconsideration on February 17, 1954. Demorar then filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the issuance of the writ of possession. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for mandamus filed by Teodora Demorar, seeking to compel respondent Judge Roman Ibañez to issue a writ of possession for Lot 2529. Demorar argues that the respondent judge erred in denying her motion for a writ of possession, despite the lot having been adjudicated to her and respondent Gregorio Poras being in unlawful possession. The petition highlights that Poras did not oppose the motion for a writ of possession in the lower court. The Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the issuance of the writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. Whether a writ of possession can be issued against a party in unlawful possession of the land even after the decree of registration has been issued.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent Judge or any one acting in his stead is directed to issue the writ of possession over lot 2529 in favor of petitioner Demorar.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for the issuance of a writ of possession: The Court found that the respondent Judge denied the motion for a writ of possession on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of the lot according to the evidence she submitted. However, the Court surmised that while Demorar might have been in possession at the time she presented evidence in 1951, she was no longer in possession by the time the decree was issued in 1953 because Gregorio Poras had unlawfully entered the land. The Court held that a writ of possession is necessary when a successful claimant is not in possession of the adjudicated property. The denial of the motion, given the alleged unlawful entry by Poras, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of whether a writ of possession can be issued against a party in unlawful possession of the land even after the decree of registration has been issued: The Court reiterated its previous rulings that a writ of possession may be issued not only against the person defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration proceedings. The issuance of the decree of registration is considered part of the registration proceedings and marks its conclusion. Therefore, any person unlawfully and adversely occupying the lot at any time up to the issuance of the final decree is subject to judicial ejectment by means of a writ of possession. It is the duty of the registration court to issue such a writ when requested by the successful claimant.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration proceedings, up to the issuance of the final decree.