G.R. No. L-21355; April 30, 1965
BENJAMINA GARCIA, ANATALIA GARCIA, FABIAN GARCIA and VICENTE GARCIA, petitioners, vs. HON. ELOY B. BELLO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and PEDRO DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

On October 18, 1918, respondent Pedro de Guzman instituted Land Registration Case No. 765 for the registration of a tract of land in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Judgment was rendered in his favor on January 30, 1923, and Original Certificate of Title No. 25381 was issued on July 18, 1923. On March 24, 1959, petitioners (the Garcia siblings) filed Civil Case No. 13847-II against De Guzman for reconveyance of the land, alleging the decree was based on a deed of donation dated June 1, 1918, which was fraudulently secured by De Guzman from their father, Juan Garcia. The trial court dismissed this reconveyance case on April 27, 1959, a dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-15988 on August 30, 1962. Meanwhile, on September 1, 1959, respondent Judge authorized a writ of possession in the land registration case in favor of De Guzman, but it was not executed due to the pending appeal. After the Supreme Court’s affirmation, De Guzman renewed his motion for the writ on December 29, 1962, which was granted by respondent Judge on February 2, 1963. Petitioners then filed the present original action for certiorari and prohibition on June 4, 1963, seeking to restrain the Judge from enforcing the writ and further proceeding in the land registration case. They argued the decision in the land registration case was not binding on them because they were not parties therein and their possession of the land began after said decision.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of possession issued in the land registration case is valid and enforceable against the petitioners, and whether the decision in the land registration case is binding upon them.

RULING

The petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. First, a land registration proceeding is an action in rem, and the decision therein is binding upon the whole world. Second, in the prior reconveyance case (Civil Case No. 13847-II), the petitioners’ own complaint indicated they were in possession of the land prior to and at the time of the institution of the land registration proceedings, refuting their present claim that their possession began after the decision. The trial court in that case, whose decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, found the allegation of fraud in the deed of donation was disproved, noting that the petitioners’ father, Juan Garcia, lived until 1950 but never sought to annul the deed or oppose the registration. Lastly, it was held in that prior case that the decree of registration in favor of De Guzman bars the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent Judge did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of possession.