Rodil v. Benedicto
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of several lots (Nos. 2417, 3423, 3424, 3753, and 3754) in the Penaranda Cadastre, Nueva Ecija. These lots were initially claimed and applied for by the spouses Tomas Rodil and Catalina Cruz, who were awarded the titles. Subsequently, the heirs of Alejandro Abes asserted their claim, alleging that the Rodil spouses secured the registration through fraud and that they were the true owners in actual legal possession. 2. Procedural History: The cadastral court adjudicated the lots to the Rodil spouses in 1958. In 1959, the heirs of Alejandro Abes filed a petition for review of the decree, alleging fraud, which was denied in 1961. Undeterred, the heirs filed a separate action for reconveyance based on the same fraud allegations, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. This dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-20996. Following this, the Rodil spouses petitioned for a writ of possession to evict the Abes heirs. The respondent Judge initially granted the writ in part but later set aside the order and dissolved the writ, finding that the Abes heirs were not parties to the original registration or proven occupants prior to the decree. The Rodil spouses' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the current petition. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent Judge to issue a writ of possession in favor of the petitioners (Tomas Rodil and the heirs of Catalina Cruz) for the disputed lots. The petitioners argue that the respondent Judge erred in denying the writ of possession, contending that the heirs of Alejandro Abes were parties to the registration proceedings, either directly or by default, and that their claim of possession prior to the decree was established in their previous legal actions. They further assert that the right to a writ of possession does not prescribe, citing established jurisprudence that such writs are not subject to the five-year limitation for executing ordinary judgments.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed an error in denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. Whether the heirs of Alejandro Abes were parties to the cadastral proceeding or occupants of the land during the registration proceedings. Whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent Judge is directed to issue the writ of possession over the specified lots in favor of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent Judge committed an error in denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge erred in denying the petition. The Court found that the respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes could not be considered strangers to the registration proceedings because cadastral proceedings are in rem and bind all persons, including the respondents, who are deemed included in the general order of default. Furthermore, the heirs voluntarily became direct parties to the registration proceedings by filing a petition for the review of the decree of registration. On whether the heirs of Alejandro Abes were parties to the cadastral proceeding or occupants of the land during the registration proceedings: The Court ruled that the respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes were indeed occupants of the land during the registration proceedings. Their own action for reconveyance stated that Alejandro Abes took possession, occupied, and cultivated the land in 1914, and his children and grandchildren continued in possession. Testimony from Bienvenido Abes corroborated that the land belonged to his grandfather, Alejandro Abes, and that after his death, his grandmother and children succeeded him, with his uncle Alejo and heirs of deceased brothers possessing their respective shares. Therefore, the heirs were unlawfully and adversely occupying the lots during the registration proceedings. On whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed out of time: The Supreme Court clarified that the right of a registered owner or his successors to ask for the issuance of a writ of possession does not prescribe. Citing Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Lorente, the Court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the execution of judgments within a specific period do not apply to writs of possession in land registration cases. The Court further cited Sta. Ana vs. Menla, which held that the five-year period for enforcing judgments by motion in civil actions does not apply to special proceedings like land registration. The purpose of a writ of possession is to place the successful claimant in possession of the land, and this right is imprescriptible, as titles to registered land cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession under Act No. 496.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession may be issued in a cadastral proceeding against parties unlawfully and adversely occupying the land during the registration proceedings, even if they were not parties to the original registration, as cadastral proceedings are proceedings in rem. The right to ask for a writ of possession does not prescribe.