GR 161037; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161037 , February 4, 2008
NORMA S. FACTOR, FE S. FACTOR, HONESTO FACTOR DE LEON, MARILYN FACTOR BURGOS, RUEBEN MA. FACTOR, BEATRIZ F. CHAN and NARCISO S. FACTOR, JR., petitioners, vs. ANTONIO V. MARTEL, JR., represented by his attorney-in-fact, ATTY. NAPOLEON G. RAMA, respondents.
FACTS
Benito J. Lopez was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. S-61176 in Las Piñas City. On December 29, 1993, Lopez sold the land to Antonio V. Martel, Jr., who subsequently subdivided it, resulting in TCT Nos. T-69568 and T-69572. On May 25, 1995, Martel, Jr. learned of a Decision dated December 8, 1994, from the Pasig RTC, Branch 71, in LRC Case No. N-9049, which granted an application for registration and confirmation of title filed by the Factor family (petitioners) on December 9, 1975. The Factors’ claim was based on possession since time immemorial of lands, including the lot from which Lopez’s title emanated. Lopez and Pepito L. Ng filed a motion to reopen and review the decree of registration. On January 27, 1997, the Pasig RTC reversed its earlier order and dismissed the Factors’ application. Relying on this ruling, Martel, Jr. filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession over the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-69568 and T-69572 before the Las Piñas RTC, Branch 202 (LRC Case No. 02-0030). Initially denied on August 26, 2002, the RTC granted Martel, Jr.’s motion for reconsideration on September 27, 2002, ordering the issuance of a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed this on October 16, 2003, and denied reconsideration on December 9, 2003. Pending reconsideration, Martel, Jr. sold the lots to Pepito L. Ng on August 17, 2003.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 02-0030.
2. Whether a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is a proper action to take possession of the properties subject of the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the issuance of the writ of possession was erroneous and that the remedy availed of was improper.
1. The writ of possession was erroneously issued. A writ of possession in land registration proceedings may be issued only pursuant to a decree of registration in an original land registration proceeding. It can be issued against the defeated party or anyone adversely occupying the land during the proceedings up to the issuance of the decree. In this case, the original decree of registration (Decree No. 428) and the corresponding OCT No. 25 were issued in 1905. The petitioners applied for registration in 1975, long after the original decree, and were not parties to the original registration case. Therefore, they are not the “adverse occupants” contemplated by law against whom a writ of possession may be enforced. The Court emphasized that a person who takes possession after the final adjudication in registration proceedings cannot be summarily ousted by a mere motion for a writ of possession; they are entitled to their day in court in proper independent proceedings.
2. The ex parte petition for a writ of possession was not the proper remedy. The proper action to recover possession from the petitioners, who had been in possession for at least ten years and were not parties to the original registration case, is an ordinary ejectment suit or a separate action to recover possession, not a summary writ of possession. The Court found that the appellate court gravely erred in affirming the issuance of the writ.
Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and set aside the writ of possession issued by the RTC.