Gawaran v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership and possession of Lot No. 2, situated in Digman, Bacoor, Cavite. Private respondents filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over four lots in 1959. Petitioners opposed the application solely with respect to Lot No. 2, where they had their residential house and a "camarin." The trial court initially awarded Lot No. 2 to the petitioners, but this decision was reversed on appeal. 2. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, confirming ownership of Lot No. 2 in favor of the private respondents. Petitioners' subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-56312) was dismissed, with an entry of judgment on May 24, 1982. Following this, an order for the issuance of a decree in favor of private respondents was issued on January 13, 1984, leading to the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2123 in their names. Despite this, petitioners remained in possession. On March 19, 1985, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cavite City, issued a writ of possession with a special order for demolition of petitioners' structures and to vacate the premises within thirty days. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Intermediate Appellate Court, seeking to annul the writ of possession and demolition order. The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed their petition on July 17, 1985, and denied their motion for reconsideration on October 22, 1985. The present petition to the Supreme Court argues that the appellate court erred in holding that a declaration of ownership necessarily includes the right of possession and in dismissing their petition, thereby allowing the demolition of their structures without reimbursement, despite their claim of being builders in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the declaration and adjudication of ownership in a land registration case include the right of possession over the property. Whether the private respondents can be allowed to dismantle and demolish petitioners' residential house and 'camarin' without reimbursement or indemnification, considering petitioners' claim of being builders in good faith.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The respondent appellate court committed no reversible error in holding that the writ of possession issued by the trial court is a necessary consequence of the adjudication of ownership and the corresponding issuance of the Original Certificate of Title. The claim of petitioners that they are builders in good faith cannot be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the declaration and adjudication of ownership include the right of possession: The Court held that in a registration case, the judgment confirming the title of the applicant and ordering its registration in his name necessarily carries with it the delivery of possession, which is an inherent element of the right of ownership. Therefore, a writ of possession may be issued not only against the person defeated in a registration case but also against any one unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree. It is the duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked for by the successful party. The respondent appellate court correctly found that the writ of possession was a necessary consequence of the adjudication of ownership and the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title. On the issue of builders in good faith and demolition: The Court ruled that the petitioners could not claim the right granted by law to possessors in good faith to justify their right of retention as builders in good faith. This is because the Court of Appeals, in the registration proceedings, had already rejected petitioners' claim of ownership over the land. The appellate court noted that petitioners presented no documentary proof of prior claims of ownership before the court case in 1959, and the testimony regarding possession in the 'concept of owner' lacked factual basis. The Court reiterated that good faith must rest on a colorable right in the builder, beyond a mere stubborn belief in one's title despite judicial adjudication. Therefore, the claim of being builders in good faith was unsustainable.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession is a necessary consequence of the adjudication of ownership and the corresponding issuance of the Original Certificate of Title in a land registration case, and it may be issued against any one unlawfully and adversely occupying the land.