G.R. No. L-28616. January 22, 1980.
Tomas Rodil and the deceased spouse Catalina Cruz, substituted by her heirs, petitioners, vs. Hon. Judge Mariano V. Benedicto as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch V-Gapan and the heirs of Alejandro Abes, respondents.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 61, the spouses Tomas Rodil and Catalina Cruz were uncontested claimants and were adjudicated ownership of several lots in Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, with Original Certificate of Title issued in 1958. Subsequently, the heirs of Alejandro Abes filed a petition for review of the decree, alleging fraud, which the cadastral court denied in 1961 for insufficiency of evidence. No appeal was taken from this denial. Instead, the Abes heirs filed a separate action for reconveyance based on the same fraud allegation. This complaint was dismissed on grounds of res judicata, a dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1966.
Upon finality, the Rodil spouses petitioned the cadastral court for a writ of possession to evict the Abes heirs from the lots. The respondent judge initially granted the writ only against four specifically named heirs, denying it as to the others for lack of clear proof they were parties or occupants during the registration proceedings. Upon motion for reconsideration by those four heirs, the judge set aside his own order and dissolved the writ entirely, holding that a writ could not issue absent allegations or proof that the respondents were defaulted parties or occupants prior to the final decree.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for a writ of possession against the heirs of Alejandro Abes.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, directing the issuance of the writ. The legal logic is twofold. First, a cadastral proceeding is an action in rem, binding upon the whole world. The general order of default entered in such a case conclusively includes all persons, including the respondents, who are deemed to have been parties to the proceedings. This status is conclusively demonstrated by the respondents’ own prior act of actively participating in the case through their petition for review of the decree. They cannot now claim to be strangers to the proceedings.
Second, the applicable rules for execution of judgments in ordinary civil actions do not govern land registration cases, which are special proceedings. The provision in the Rules of Court stating that a judgment may be enforced by motion within five years or by action within ten years (Section 6, Rule 39) pertains to civil actions and is inapplicable. The purpose of land registration is to conclusively establish ownership and quiet title. Once a decree becomes final, the registered owner is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right to place them in possession of the property, and this right does not expire after a specific period. The respondent judge’s requirement for specific proof of the respondents’ status as occupants or defaulted parties prior to the decree was therefore a misapplication of the law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The registered owners’ entitlement to the writ is absolute.