Mendoza v. Salinas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Soledad Salinas applied for land registration, and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10053 was issued in her name covering a parcel of land with an area of 20,149 square meters. Procedural History: Petitioners Gerardo, Trinia, and Iylene Mendoza opposed respondent's application for a writ of possession, claiming they were not parties to the registration case and had been in actual physical possession of the property since 1964. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72, acting as a land registration court, granted respondent's prayer for a writ of possession. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's Order granting the writ of possession, alleging grave abuse of discretion. They reiterated their claim of actual possession since 1964, supported by a Sales Application and Declarations of Real Property.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in issuing the writ of possession and acted with grave abuse of discretion, considering the petitioners' claim of ownership and the prior dismissal of the unlawful detainer case. Whether the principle of hierarchy of courts applies to the petition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullified and set aside the Order dated April 2, 2002, and denied respondent's application for a writ of possession, without prejudice to any case respondent may file for recovery of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the propriety of the writ of possession: The Court found that the RTC committed a reversible error in granting the writ of possession. While a writ of possession is generally a ministerial duty of the land registration court after a final decree of registration, this duty ceases to be ministerial when the occupants are in actual possession under a claim of ownership. Article 433 of the Civil Code presumes that actual possession under claim of ownership is disputable, and the true owner must resort to judicial process, such as an ejectment or reinvindicatory action, to recover the property. The Court noted that a Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) had previously dismissed an unlawful detainer case filed by the respondent against the petitioners for lack of cause of action, which decision was not appealed by the respondent. The RTC's reliance on Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals was misplaced, as that case itself supported the conclusion that a writ of possession cannot issue against possessors under a claim of ownership. On the procedural issue of hierarchy of courts: The Court clarified that the petition filed was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Therefore, the principle of hierarchy of courts did not apply, and direct resort to the Supreme Court was proper as the issue raised was purely a question of law concerning the propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession, while generally a ministerial duty of the land registration court, ceases to be so when the possessor claims ownership, in which case the true owner must resort to judicial process like an ejectment or reinvindicatory action, not a summary motion for a writ of possession.