G.R. No. L-25496 December 27, 1969
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, petitioner, vs. JUDGE RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of Camarines Sur, CATALINA ATIENZA, MARCOS ATIENZA, AGUSTINA ATIENZA, LUCENA ATIENZA, FLORENCIO ATIENZA, LORETO ATIENZA and EPIFANIO ATIENZA, respondents.

FACTS

On January 24, 1955, private respondents (the Atienzas) obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 545 for their land in Manguiring, Calabanga, Camarines Sur, through an ordinary registration proceeding. The titled land included a Catholic Cemetery used by the petitioner, The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres. On October 17, 1958, the petitioner filed a complaint for reconveyance (Civil Case No. 4309) against the respondents, praying to be declared the owner of the cemetery portion, for its reconveyance, and for damages. The respondents denied the claim and asserted their ownership, counterclaiming for payment of rentals under an alleged lease. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on June 4, 1959, declaring the petitioner as the owner and ordering the respondents to reconvey the land. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision in CA-G.R. No. 27303-R, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its ownership. The appellate court held that the petitioner’s evidence did not establish a sale or acquisition by prescription, and that the use of the land as a cemetery since 1934 could have been with the respondents’ tolerance or permission. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s complaint. This decision became final. Subsequently, on October 11, 1965, the respondents filed a motion for execution in the lower court, praying for a writ of possession to be placed in possession of the land. The respondent judge, Rafael de la Cruz, granted the motion on November 24, 1965. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 15, 1965.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the respondents’ motion for a writ of possession after the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the petitioner’s action for reconveyance.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of November 24, 1965 and December 15, 1965. The Court held that the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting the writ of possession. The Court of Appeals’ decision, which reversed the trial court and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for reconveyance, merely declared that the petitioner was not the owner of the land. It did not contain any pronouncement regarding the right of possession. Ownership and possession are distinct legal concepts; a judgment declaring ownership does not automatically include the right to possession as a necessary incident. The Court found that the petitioner was in possession of the property with the prior consent and agreement of the respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, upon a promise to pay reasonable rental. Therefore, the petitioner’s right of possession must be respected. The proper remedy for the respondents, if they sought to recover possession based on non-payment of rents, was an action for ejectment under Rule 70, not a writ of possession. Furthermore, a writ of possession is available to an applicant for registration and successors-in-interest against a party who acquired possession adversely prior to the decree, not against one legitimately given possession, such as a lessee. The writ of possession is issued by the court issuing the decree of registration as a consequence thereof, not by virtue of a counterclaim in an ordinary action.