GR L 1917; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1917; May 20, 1949
CATALINO MAGLASANG, petitioner, vs. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ALEJANDRA CONDE, SANTIAGO TUMOLAK, MARIA DE TUMOLAK, REYMONDA TUMOLAK, FERNANDO CAGOYONG, AGREFINO DE LA CRUZ, CELERINA DELGADO and FORTUNATO PANTON-OG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Catalino Maglasang obtained Torrens title to two lots in Ormoc, Leyte. He filed a motion in the trial court for a writ of possession against several persons occupying the lots. The respondent judge granted the writ only against two individuals (Alejandra Conde and Santiago Tumolak) who were original claimants-oppositors in the registration proceedings and whose claims had been dismissed. The judge denied the writ as to the other respondents, who took possession of the lots after the final adjudication, ruling that they could not be summarily ousted by a mere motion and must be removed through an independent ordinary action.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of possession may be issued via a mere motion against persons who entered and occupied the land after the final decree of registration.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the respondent judge’s order. The Court ruled that persons who took possession of the lots after the final adjudication in the registration proceedings cannot be summarily ousted through a writ of possession obtained by a mere motion. Regardless of the validity of their title, such occupants are entitled to their day in court in a proper independent action (e.g., an action for ejectment or recovery of possession). The Court cited the doctrines in Yumul vs. Rivera and Sepagan vs. Dacillo. The writ of possession is a summary remedy available only against the original losing oppositors or claimants in the registration case, not against subsequent occupants.
AI Generated by Armztrong.