Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of three parcels of land: Lot No. 1316 of Kabankalan Cadastre and Lot Nos. 2685 and 717 of Ilog Cadastre in Negros Occidental. The Hernaez family initiated a petition for the reconstitution of lost titles to these properties, which was granted, leading to the issuance of new transfer certificates of title in their names. The Serra heirs, claiming to be the rightful owners and possessors with subsisting titles since before the war, filed an adverse claim and a motion to cancel the reconstituted titles, asserting that the Hernaezes' titles were fraudulent and that they had been misled in the reconstitution proceedings. 2. Procedural History: The Hernaezes filed a petition for reconstitution of titles, which was granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bacolod City. Subsequently, the Register of Deeds issued reconstituted titles to the Hernaezes. The Serra heirs filed a motion to cancel these titles with the CFI of Himamaylan, presided over by Judge Abiera, which was denied without a formal hearing. A writ of possession was then issued in favor of the Hernaezes. The Serras challenged the denial and the writ of possession via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially issued a preliminary injunction but later set it aside, leading to the enforcement of the writ of possession. The Serras then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. L-34080). Concurrently, the Serras filed a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 10040) against Felipe Garaygay and SONEDCO concerning the harvesting and milling of sugarcane from the disputed lots. Orders from the CFI in this civil case, particularly those dissolving a preliminary injunction and issuing another against the Serras, were also challenged before the Supreme Court, resulting in a consolidated petition (G.R. L-34693). 3. The Petition: These consolidated petitions, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seek writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. In G.R. L-34080, the petitioners (Serra heirs) argue that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the preliminary injunction, which effectively allowed their dispossession based on a writ of possession issued in a reconstitution proceeding, asserting that such a writ is improper in reconstitution cases and should not have been issued without a formal hearing, especially when petitioners claim prior subsisting titles and possession. In G.R. L-34693, they contend that the orders from Judge Alampay in the civil case were issued with grave abuse of discretion, particularly the order enjoining them from harvesting sugarcane, as it contravened the Supreme Court's earlier resolution maintaining the status quo and interfered with issues pending before higher courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in lifting the writ of preliminary injunction it previously issued. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of possession in a petition for reconstitution of title, considering the notice requirements, finality of reconstitution orders, and the nature of a motion for cancellation of reconstituted titles. Whether the orders of respondent Judge Alampay in Civil Case No. 10040 were issued with grave abuse of discretion, specifically regarding the lifting of the injunction against SONEDCO and the issuance of the injunction against the Serras.
Ruling
The petitions are GRANTED. The resolution of the Court of Appeals lifting the writ of preliminary injunction is SET ASIDE. The writ of possession issued in Cadastral Case No. 17, GLRO Records No. 163 is declared NULL and VOID. The records are remanded to the trial court for hearing of the motion for cancellation of the reconstituted titles. Private respondents are ordered to return to petitioners the possession of the properties in question. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court on February 15, 1972, shall remain effective until the issue of ownership and/or possession is finally settled.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of lifting the writ of preliminary injunction: The Court found that Judge Alampay did not abuse his discretion when he lifted the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining SONEDCO from issuing sugar quedans because the lifting of the injunction in the CA case had already allowed the Hernaezes to take possession. On the propriety of the writ of possession in a reconstitution case, notice requirements, finality of reconstitution order, and motion for cancellation: The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession by Judge Abiera after the motion for cancellation of reconstituted titles was dismissed, and under the circumstances, was improper because reconstitution does not confirm or adjudicate ownership. The Court reiterated that actual owners and possessors must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition, and that an order for reconstitution does not become final if no original title exists or if there is an earlier valid certificate of title. The Court also found that the motion for cancellation of the reconstituted titles filed by the petitioners was in the nature of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court and was timely filed. On the propriety of Judge Alampay's orders in Civil Case No. 10040: The Court found that Judge Alampay committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued the writ of preliminary injunction dated December 29, 1971, enjoining the Serras from harvesting, hauling, and selling sugarcane. This order was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court as possession was not an issue in that case, and it directly contravened the Supreme Court's own writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction in G.R. No. L-34080, which enjoined further dispossession.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession cannot be issued in a petition for reconstitution of an allegedly lost or destroyed certificate of title, as reconstitution does not confirm or adjudicate ownership. Such a writ is only available in specific proceedings like land registration, extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, judicial foreclosure of mortgage, and execution sales. Furthermore, actual possessors of property must be given actual and personal notice of reconstitution proceedings, as notice by publication alone is insufficient.