G.R. No. L-22092; October 29, 1966
ANTONIO MAGALLANES, petitioner and appellant, vs. HEIRS OF LEON SARITA, respondents and appellees.

FACTS

On October 23, 1934, Paulino Magallanes filed Sales Application No. 19302 for public land in Lanao. After approval and auction, the land was awarded to him. Upon his death in 1951, his son Antonio Magallanes purchased the rights from his co-heirs. The Bureau of Lands surveyed the land, allotting Lot No. 809 (61.2089 hectares) to Paulino. On October 22, 1951, the Director of Lands issued an order for the patent to be issued to Antonio. A month later, Leon Sarita filed a claim (B.L. Conflict No. 215(N)) for one-half of Lot No. 809, alleging an agreement with Paulino Magallanes for equal division. Antonio Magallanes filed a quiet title action (Civil Case No. 347-R) and won, but an appeal was pending. The Director of Lands gave due course to Sarita’s claim on July 10, 1954, a decision sustained by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on June 17, 1955. Antonio Magallanes’ petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was dismissed without prejudice. He then filed an action for prohibition against the Director of Lands and Leon Sarita on February 27, 1956, later amended to include the Secretary. Respondents failed to appear, were declared in default, and on October 29, 1958, the trial court granted the petition, declaring Antonio Magallanes the absolute owner and possessor, nullifying the administrative decisions, and prohibiting their enforcement. Leon Sarita’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for non-payment of fees. After the judgment became final, Antonio Magallanes obtained a writ of possession on February 27, 1963. The heirs of Leon Sarita, reportedly remaining in possession, were charged with contempt. Leon Sarita moved to quash the writ; the court denied it but later set aside the writ on June 20, 1963, and denied the contempt charge on June 28, 1963. Antonio Magallanes appealed these orders.

ISSUE

1. Could Leon Sarita be heard to complain against the issuance of the writ of possession considering he was previously adjudged in default?
2. Was it proper for the court to issue a writ of possession?
3. Were the heirs of Leon Sarita in contempt of court for continuing possession despite service of the writ?

RULING

1. Yes, Leon Sarita could be heard. His answer to the original petition stood as his answer to the amended petition. Default arises from failure to answer on time, not merely from failure to appear at hearing. Thus, he retained standing to file a motion to quash the writ.
2. No, the issuance of the writ of possession was improper. The action was for prohibition, not for recovery of possession. A writ of possession is only issuable in an action for recovery of possession over real property. The judgment in a prohibition case is enforced by serving a certified copy on the concerned officer or tribunal, as per Section 9, Rule 67, not by a writ of possession. The writ issued was void.
3. No, the heirs were not in contempt. They could not be bound by a void writ of possession. The court correctly denied the motion for contempt.
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders setting aside the writ of possession and denying the contempt charge. Costs were imposed on petitioner-appellant Antonio Magallanes.