G.R. No. L-38152 September 20, 1990
ROMEO PAYLAGO and ROSARIO DIMAANDAL, petitioners, vs. HON. NICANOR P. NICOLAS, as Presiding Judge of the CFI of Oriental Mindoro, the Provincial Sheriff of Oriental Mindoro and INES PASTRANA JARABE, respondents.

FACTS

This petition for certiorari and prohibition seeks to annul two orders of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. R-709. The first, dated September 15, 1970, approved a subdivision plan (LRC Psd-121339) for specific lots and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession. The second, dated November 29, 1973, denied the petitioners’ motion to set aside the earlier order. The case originates from a prior litigation (G.R. No. L-20046) where the Supreme Court affirmed that respondent Ines Pastrana Jarabe was the rightful owner of a half-hectare portion of land. This portion was part of a larger tract originally owned by Anselmo Lacatan, whose heirs sold portions to petitioners Paylago and Dimaandal in 1953 and 1954. However, the Court found that Jarabe’s husband had purchased that specific half-hectare portion from Apolonio Lacatan in 1938, and she had been in continuous, adverse possession since then. The Court ruled the petitioners were not purchasers in good faith, as they were aware of Jarabe’s possession and claim.
Upon finality of that decision, Jarabe moved for a writ of possession and approval of a survey plan to segregate her adjudicated property. The respondent court granted the motion. Petitioners opposed, arguing the approved subdivision plan did not conform to the court’s decision and that the consequent writ of possession was void. They later admitted their house is situated within the lot (marked Exh. B-1 of Exh. B) that was adjudicated to Jarabe.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders approving the subdivision plan and granting the writ of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the final and executory nature of the prior decision in G.R. No. L-20046, which conclusively settled ownership and the right to possession in favor of respondent Jarabe over the specific half-hectare lot. A writ of possession is a logical and necessary consequence of a final adjudication of ownership when the defeated party retains possession without any legal right to do so. The petitioners, having been declared not in good faith and without a superior claim, have no right to withhold possession from the adjudged owner.
The Court clarified that the approved subdivision plan (Psd-121339) merely implemented the final judgment by technically segregating the exact area awarded to Jarabe. The petitioners’ admission that their house stands on the adjudicated lot (Exh. B-1) validates the respondent court’s action. There is no discrepancy between the plan and the decision; the plan operationalizes the decision. Since the petitioners possess no leasehold or other right to continue occupying the land, the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction and duty in approving the plan and issuing the writ to give effect to the final judgment. The orders were not capricious or whimsical but were a proper exercise of judicial power to execute a final decree.