GR L 16995; (October, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16995; October 28, 1968
JULIO LUCERO, movant-appellee, vs. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo, through Judge Wenceslao L. Fernan, issued an order dated September 21, 1959, granting a writ of possession in favor of Julio Lucero. This order was based on a final decree issued on October 29, 1941, in a land registration case originating from a 1938 decision. The oppositors, all surnamed Loot, filed an opposition, which the lower court deemed trivial, arguing there were defects in the reconstitution of records and that the motion was not under oath. The oppositors subsequently filed an urgent motion to quash the writ, followed by multiple motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied by the lower court in orders dated October 23, 1959, December 10, 1959, and February 20, 1960. The oppositors appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the order granting the writ of possession was in accordance with law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders, ruling that the issuance of the writ of possession was proper. The Court held that once a final decree has been issued in a land registration case, the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court if no such writ had been previously issued in favor of the registered owner. There is no period of prescription for the issuance of a writ of possession. The Court cited established jurisprudence, including Pasay Estate Co. v. Del Rosario and Demorar v. Ibañez, which state that a writ of possession may be issued against anyone adversely occupying the land up to the issuance of the final decree, and it is the registration court’s duty to issue the writ upon application by the successful claimant. The Court further noted that the pendency of a separate reconveyance action (Civil Case No. 5019) did not oust the lower court of its jurisdiction to issue the writ. The appeal, which raised many factual issues not cognizable in a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, was dismissed. Costs were imposed against the oppositors-appellants.