Semon v. Marcos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Gilbert Semon, et al., claimed ownership of small lots scattered within a larger parcel of approximately 100 hectares. The heirs of Sioco Cariño, represented by Paulita Cariño, were seeking to register the larger parcel. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a petition for authority to survey their respective lots on January 9 and August 25, 1963. The respondent judge, Hon. Pio R. Marcos, denied this motion in an Order dated February 8, 1963. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the respondent judge acted arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion for authority to survey the lots they respectively claimed, which were situated within the perimeter of the larger parcel sought to be registered by the other respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion for authority to survey their respective lots. Whether parties in possession of their lots are required to seek court leave to survey them.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied for lack of merit. The order of the respondent judge is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion for authority to survey their respective lots: The Court found no merit in the petition for certiorari. It held that the respondent judge did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners had alleged under oath in their amended opposition to the application for registration that they had been in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and peaceful possession of the lots respectively claimed by each of them. If these allegations were true, then they possessed the right to survey their lots at any time without needing to ask for leave from the court. The denial of the motion was therefore justified as it was an unnecessary request. On Whether parties in possession of their lots are required to seek court leave to survey them: The Court clarified that parties in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and peaceful possession of their respective lots could make the survey at any time without asking leave of court. The Court further stated that should their right to do so be impeded by force or other unlawful means, the petitioners could seek proper remedy in the competent court. This implies that the appropriate legal recourse for infringement of such rights lies in ordinary legal actions, not in a petition for certiorari to compel the court to grant permission for a survey.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that individuals in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and peaceful possession of their respective lots are not required to seek prior leave from the court to survey their properties. Should their right to survey be impeded by force or other unlawful means, the proper recourse is to seek appropriate remedies in the competent court, rather than filing a petition for certiorari to compel the court to grant permission for such a survey.