Agreda v. Rodriguez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Cadastral Case No. 83, Lot No. 3400 was claimed by Santiago Agreda, Ildefonso Agreda, and the Habanas. The court initially declared the lot public land. Santiago Agreda appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision and adjudicated the lot to him. A petition for review by Ildefonso Agreda and the Habanas to the Supreme Court was dismissed without prejudice to a separate action. Procedural History: Subsequently, petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 6267 for reconveyance and partition of Lot No. 3400. Meanwhile, Santiago Agreda applied for a writ of possession in the cadastral case. Despite petitioners' opposition, the writ was issued by respondent Judge Rodriguez, who also refused to reconsider it. Petitioners then filed the present certiorari case to annul the writ of possession and the orders. The Petition: Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, alleging that respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the writ of possession. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy for petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ prayed for is denied. The orders of June 8, 1963, and July 15, 1963, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the writ of possession: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge had jurisdiction to pass upon the motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. The issuance of the writ was a logical consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeals adjudicating the lot to Santiago Agreda. The Court cited Section 10 of Act No. 2347, which conferred upon Courts of First Instance the jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Land Registration, and the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to land registration cases. It further emphasized the inherent power of courts to compel obedience to their judgments and to issue writs of execution for enforcement, including writs of possession for the delivery of real property. The Court reiterated that the party in whose favor a judgment is given may have a writ of execution issued for its enforcement, and if the judgment is for the delivery of possession of real property, the writ must require the sheriff to deliver possession to the entitled party. On the issue of whether certiorari is the proper remedy for petitioners: The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari is not the proper remedy because petitioners could have appealed the order issuing the writ of possession. The Court stated that the writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and is generally not available when the ordinary remedies, such as appeal, are open to the aggrieved party. Since an appeal was available to challenge the order of the respondent Judge, the petition for certiorari was dismissed. The Court clarified that even if the motion for the writ of possession should have been denied due to the institution of Civil Case No. 6267, this matter does not affect the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to act on the motion.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari to annul a writ of possession issued in a cadastral case is not the proper remedy when the aggrieved party could have appealed the order issuing the writ, and the judge acted within his jurisdiction in issuing the writ as a logical consequence of a final and executory judgment adjudicating the property.