G.R. No. L-11274; March 29, 1916
RAFAELA DALMACIO, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO BARRETTO, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, and THE SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner Rafaela Dalmacio had been a lessee of parcels of land on the Tala hacienda in Caloocan since the Spanish period. Her lease was recorded with the Bureau of Lands in 1905 under Act No. 1120. During the survey of the estate, lots Nos. 859 and 861 were assigned to her, but she later discovered these were not the actual parcels she occupied and leased. She refused to purchase them and requested the Bureau to identify the correct lots. The Director of Lands nevertheless canceled her lease contract. Dalmacio filed an action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal to assert her preferential right to purchase the lands she actually occupied. While that case was pending, the Director of Lands, in Land Registration Case No. 6563 (where the government had obtained title to the hacienda), petitioned the CFI for a writ of possession to eject Dalmacio and her caretaker from the leased parcels. The CFI granted the ejectment order. Dalmacio filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing the CFI acted in excess of jurisdiction by ordering ejectment while her preferential right to purchase was still under litigation.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing an order of ejectment against the petitioner while an action regarding her preferential right to purchase the same land was still pending.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and annulled the ejectment order. The Court held that while the Director of Lands, as the registered owner under the land registration decree, was generally entitled to a writ of possession under Act No. 1680, the CFI exceeded its jurisdiction in this instance. Ordering Dalmacio’s ejectment while her separate action to enforce her preferential right as a lessee was pending would effectively prejudge that case and deprive her of the possession necessary to maintain her claim. As a recognized lessee, she had a potential preferential right to purchase the land she occupied, and her possession should be protected until that right was finally adjudicated. The ejectment order was therefore null and void. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was made permanent until the resolution of Dalmacio’s pending action.