G.R. No. 547: September 11, 1902
FLORENCIO POZADAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DOMINGO MARTINEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Florencio Pozadas filed a petition on May 13, 1901, before the Court of First Instance, alleging ownership of a parcel of land in San Carlos based on a public instrument recorded in the Register of Property. He sought to be placed in judicial possession of the land under Article 2015 of the then Law of Civil Procedure. The court granted his petition on the same date, without prejudice to third persons with better rights. After the publication of edicts, Pozadas was placed in possession on May 22 without opposition. However, on May 25, the judge declared the proceedings null due to defects in citation and description of boundaries, ordering a new proceeding.

During the new proceeding on May 31, Domingo Martinez and Magdalena Martinez appeared and opposed, claiming ownership and possession of a portion of the land. The municipal president, acting as commissioner, did not suspend the proceedings but notified Martinez to bring his claim before the Court of First Instance. Martinez filed a petition on June 1, asking that the possession given to Pozadas be set aside and that Pozadas be required to assert his rights in a proper civil action. After an ocular inspection, the court issued an order on June 24, reversing the possession granted to Pozadas, declaring the proceeding contentious, and enjoining Pozadas from molesting Martinez’s possession. Pozadas appealed this order.

ISSUE:
Whether the court correctly reversed the order granting possession to Pozadas and declared the proceeding contentious upon the opposition of Martinez and his wife.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of June 24, 1901. The Court held that proceedings for judicial possession under voluntary jurisdiction (Article 2015) are proper only when no third-party opposition exists. The moment a third person, like Martinez and his wife, who claims an interest in the property, makes a timely opposition before possession is conferred, the proceedings must be suspended and converted into a contentious action pursuant to Article 1817 of the Law of Civil Procedure. The municipal president’s act of placing Pozadas in possession despite the opposition was a violation of this rule, though he was exempted from liability as a layman acting in good faith. The earlier order of May 25, which nullified the first possession and ordered new proceedings, had become final and unappealable. Therefore, the opposition validly transformed the case into a contentious one, requiring Pozadas to establish his ownership in an ordinary civil action. The appealed order was affirmed, with costs of the second instance imposed on Pozadas, but the portion regarding costs in the first instance was set aside.