GR L 15609; (March, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15609; April 29, 1960
RAFAEL MARCELO, petitioner, vs. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rafael Marcelo applied for the registration of three parcels of land in Taguig, Rizal. The application was opposed by Leocadio Pagsisihan, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Clemente Pagsisihan. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, sitting as a land registration court, initially declared Marcelo the owner of only one lot, denied Pagsisihan’s opposition, and declared the other two lots public lands. Marcelo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision and declared him the owner of all three lots. After the judgment became final, a decree and certificate of title were issued in Marcelo’s favor. As Clemente Pagsisihan refused to deliver possession of lots 2 and 3, Marcelo petitioned for a writ of possession, which was granted by respondent Judge on March 14, 1959. However, Pagsisihan still refused to vacate and remove his house. Marcelo then filed a petition for demolition, which respondent Judge denied on May 2, 1959, stating that the land registration court lacked jurisdiction to order demolition. Marcelo’s motion for reconsideration was also denied on June 8, 1959, prompting this petition for certiorari and mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal, sitting as a land registration court, has jurisdiction or authority to order the demolition of improvements as a consequence of a writ of possession issued by it.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of respondent Judge and remanded the case for further proceedings on the petition for demolition. The Court held that:
1. The provisions of the Rules of Court apply suppletorily to land registration cases under Rule 132.
2. Section 13, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which governs the enforcement of execution for the delivery or restitution of property, including the issuance of a special order for demolition after due hearing and the defendant’s failure to remove improvements within a reasonable time, is applicable. A writ of demolition is a complement to a writ of possession; without it, the writ of possession would be ineffective.
3. Requiring a successful litigant in a land registration case to institute a separate action for possession or demolition would foster unnecessary litigation and multiplicity of suits, contrary to the purpose of the law.
4. Under Section 6, Rule 124, a court has the power to employ all auxiliary writs and processes necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect. The land registration court, therefore, has the power to issue a writ of demolition as an auxiliary writ to enforce the writ of possession.
5. Independently, every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within its jurisdiction, including issuing a writ of demolition to ensure the successful litigant obtains possession.