Bernas v. Nuevo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Heirs of Pascual Bellosillo and Francisca Besa, represented by Silvestre Bellosillo, filed a complaint against Edilberto Bernas, Baldonera Bulquirin, and Teofilo Berano for recovery of possession of a 33 1/3 hectare parcel of land known as Lot 3382 of the Panay Cadastre and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs later filed a motion for a writ of possession, arguing it was paramount to prevent the dissipation of the estate. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Pelayo Nuevo granted the writ of possession on August 28, 1981, after pre-trial and hearing. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was not acted upon due to Judge Nuevo's retirement. Subsequently, Judge Oscar Leviste, who replaced Judge Nuevo, acted on the motion for reconsideration and issued an order on December 8, 1981, declaring the writ of possession null and void. Judge Leviste later ordered the defendants to be placed in possession of the property on April 20, 1982. The Petition: Petitioners in G.R. No. 58438 (Bernas, et al.) sought to annul the August 28, 1981 order and the writ of possession. Petitioners in G.R. No. 60423 (Bellosillo) prayed for the nullification of Judge Leviste's December 8, 1981 and April 20, 1982 orders.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Nuevo acted in excess of jurisdiction when he granted the writ of possession. Whether respondent Judge Leviste acted in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion in issuing his orders while a petition for certiorari was pending before the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the orders of both Judge Nuevo and Judge Leviste. It held that the petitioners-defendants in G.R. No. 58438 should remain in possession of Lot No. 3382 pending final adjudication of the respective rights of both parties in the civil case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Judge Nuevo's order: The Court held that it is a settled rule 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. The defendants-petitioners had been in possession of the lot since 1960 under an alleged lease contract and were not parties to the original registration case. 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. Therefore, it was a patent error for Judge Nuevo to issue the questioned writ. The Court reiterated the rule that persons who subsequently entered the property claiming a right of possession cannot be dispossessed by a mere writ of possession; the remedy is to institute a separate action. Only after judgment has been rendered can the prevailing party secure a writ of possession. On the issue of Judge Leviste's orders: The Court found that Judge Leviste's orders were issued without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the writ of possession was not in order. It was presumptuous for him to grant the motion for reconsideration when he knew that the subject matter was still pending before the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. The act of issuing the orders constituted disrespect and disregard of the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The respondent judge should have waited for the Supreme Court's decision before acting on the motion for reconsideration and issuing the said orders.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession will not issue against parties who have been in possession of the land for at least ten years, apparently after the issuance of a final decree, and who were not parties to the original registration proceedings, as they cannot be summarily ousted without their day in court in proper independent proceedings.