Factor v. Martel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership and possession of several parcels of land in Las Piñas City. Benito J. Lopez initially owned a parcel of land, which he sold to Antonio V. Martel, Jr. Martel, Jr. subsequently subdivided the land and obtained individual titles. However, the Factors, claiming ownership based on immemorial possession, had applied for registration and confirmation of title to lands, including one from which Lopez's title emanated, in a separate proceeding initiated in 1975. Procedural History: The Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, initially granted the Factors' application for registration in 1994. However, this decision was later reversed and the case dismissed by the same court in 1997. Following this reversal, Martel, Jr. filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession in the Las Piñas RTC, Branch 202, seeking to take possession of two lots covered by TCT Nos. T-69568 and T-69572. The Las Piñas RTC initially denied this petition but later granted Martel, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration, ordering the issuance of the writ. The Factors then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Las Piñas RTC's resolution. The Factors' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. The Petition: The petitioners, the Factors, are seeking review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 02-0030 and that a petition for a writ of possession is not the proper remedy to take possession of the properties. They contend that a writ of possession can only be issued pursuant to a decree of registration in an original land registration proceeding and that Martel, Jr. filed his petition outside of such a proceeding, which had concluded in 1905. They further argue that since the Factors' claim is based on immemorial possession and their application for registration was still pending appeal, Martel, Jr. (and his successor, Ng) should have filed an action for ejectment or accion reinvindicatoria instead of seeking a writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 02-0030, considering the petitioners were not parties to the original registration case and had been in possession for a significant period. Whether or not a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was a proper action to take possession of the properties, given the pending appeal of LRC Case No. N-9049 and the possessors' claim of ownership.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 16, 2003, and Resolution dated December 9, 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73906 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. LRC Case No. 02-0030 is hereby DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (erroneous issuance of a writ of possession): The Supreme Court held that a writ of possession may be issued in land registration proceedings to enforce a decree of registration, but only against the person defeated in the registration case or anyone adversely occupying the land during the proceedings up to the decree's issuance. In this case, the petitioners (Factors) applied for registration long after the original decree and were not parties to that case. They are not the adverse occupants against whom a writ of possession may be enforced. When parties against whom a writ is sought have been in possession for at least 10 years, entered possession after the final decree, and were not parties to the registration proceedings, the writ will not issue; they cannot be summarily ousted without their day in court in proper independent proceedings. On the second issue (propriety of the remedy): The Court clarified that the ex parte petition for a writ of possession was filed to implement a decision in LRC Case No. N-9049, which was on appeal. Execution issues as a matter of right upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action after the period to appeal has expired if no appeal is perfected. If an appeal is perfected and finally resolved, execution may be applied for in the court of origin. The Court found no indication that the appellate court's decision in LRC Case No. N-9049 had become final and executory. Even if it had, a writ of possession would still be unavailing because the motion for its issuance was not filed in the same case for which execution was sought. Pending the final outcome of LRC Case No. N-9049, the proper remedy for Ng (Martel, Jr.'s successor) to take possession of the lots is through an accion reinvindicatoria against the petitioners, as a writ of possession cannot issue against possessors who claim ownership.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession cannot be issued against possessors who claim ownership and have been in possession for at least ten years, especially if they were not parties to the original land registration proceedings. In such cases, the true owner must resort to an accion reinvindicatoria to recover possession.