G.R. No. L-34080 and G.R. No. L-34693; March 22, 1991
Salvador Serra Serra, et al., petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., respondents. (G.R. No. L-34080) and Salvador Serra Serra, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Judge Nestor B. Alampay, et al., respondents. (G.R. No. L-34693)

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from a dispute over three parcels of land. Private respondents, the Hernaezes, successfully petitioned for the reconstitution of allegedly lost original certificates of title covering the lots in their predecessor’s name. Upon learning of the reconstituted titles, petitioners, the Serras, filed an adverse claim and a motion for cancellation, asserting they held valid existing titles and were in actual possession since before the war. The trial court (Judge Abiera) denied the Serras’ motion without a hearing and later issued a writ of possession in favor of the Hernaezes. The Serras challenged this via certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-00139), which initially issued a preliminary injunction. However, the CA later lifted this injunction.
Simultaneously, a separate civil case (No. 10040) was filed by the Serras against Felipe Garaygay (the Hernaezes’ representative) and SONEDCO for recovery of sugarcane and damages. In this case, Judge Alampay issued an order enjoining the Serras from harvesting sugarcane from the disputed lots, contravening a separate Supreme Court injunction issued in G.R. No. L-34080 that aimed to preserve the Serras’ possession pending resolution.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial courts and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in their orders affecting possession of the disputed properties during the pendency of the main controversy over the validity of the reconstituted titles.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions. The legal logic centers on the improper issuance of interlocutory orders that disturbed the status quo and created conflicting injunctions. First, the writ of possession issued by Judge Abiera was null and void. A writ of possession is a consequential remedy following a final adjudication of ownership or a ministerial implementation of a judgment. Here, the reconstitution order was not a final determination of ownership against the Serras, who claimed pre-existing titles and actual possession. Issuing a writ based solely on the reconstituted titles, without resolving the Serras’ pending motion for cancellation which challenged the very validity of those titles, was premature and a grave abuse of discretion.
Second, Judge Alampay’s order in Civil Case No. 10040 enjoining the Serras from harvesting sugarcane constituted grave abuse of discretion because it improperly adjudicated possession. That civil case was an action for recovery of personal property (sugarcane) and damages, where possession of the land was not the issue litigated by the parties. The issue of possession was already pending in the Court of Appeals in the certiorari proceeding (CA-G.R. No. SP-00139). Judge Alampay’s order effectively decided a matter outside his case’s scope and directly contravened the Supreme Court’s own preliminary injunction in G.R. No. L-34080, which was issued precisely to maintain the Serras’ possession pending final resolution. The Court emphasized that conflicting orders from different courts regarding the same subject matter are impermissible. Consequently, the CA’s resolution lifting its injunction was set aside, the writ of possession was annulled, and the case was remanded for a proper hearing on the motion to cancel the reconstituted titles.