G.R. No. L-22110, September 28, 1968
HEIRS OF CRISTOBAL MARCOS, Headed by ANTONIO MARCOS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MARIA DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, GREGORIO PONDAL and the HON. MARIANO V. BENEDICTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, respondents.

FACTS

On March 24, 1938, the Court of First Instance of Masbate rendered a decision in Land Registration Case No. 46, confirming the titles of La Urbana, Inc. over Lot 1, Psu-56145, and ordering its registration in La Urbana’s favor. A copy was received on March 29, 1938, by Jose Grajo with the notation “Con mi excepcion.” No appeal was perfected. On May 17, 1960, Santiago de Erquiaga, a successor-in-interest of La Urbana, filed a petition for reconstitution of the 1938 decision. During the proceedings, respondent Maria de Erquiaga de Banuvar acquired Lot 1 and was substituted as a party. Petitioners opposed the reconstitution, claiming actual, adverse, and uninterrupted possession since time immemorial. The court initially denied the petition but later granted it on January 30, 1962, ordering the reconstitution of the decision and directing that a decree be issued to De Banuvar once compliance was made. Petitioners appealed, but their appeal was dismissed for failure to post the required bond. Their subsequent petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals was also dismissed. De Banuvar then moved for issuance of a decree over Lot 1, attaching the plan and technical description. Petitioners opposed, arguing no plan was reconstituted, the 1938 decision was not final due to the “Con mi excepcion” notation, and circumstances had changed. On June 13, 1963, the respondent court ordered issuance of a decree in favor of De Banuvar, finding the decision final and executory. On June 24 and July 16, 1963, it granted a writ of possession against all persons occupying portions of Lot 1. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 1963, as Decree No. N-94859 had already been issued on July 1, 1963. Hence, this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the March 24, 1938 decision had become final and executory.
2. Whether the decree issued to De Banuvar was valid despite petitioners’ claim that no plan and technical description were reconstituted.
3. Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting a writ of possession against the petitioners.

RULING

1. Yes, the 1938 decision was final and executory. The notation “Con mi excepcion” did not perfect an appeal. Under Section 26 of Act 2347, a judgment in a land registration case becomes final thirty days from receipt of notice. The certification of the acting provincial land officer confirmed no appeal was taken by the Director of Lands or any private oppositors. The requirement for segregation of a portion of Lot 1 per an agreement between the Director of Lands and the applicant did not affect finality, as it pertained to a defined portion and could be accomplished post-finality.
2. Yes, the decree was valid. The order of January 30, 1962, granting reconstitution, explicitly considered Exhibits “P” (Tracing Cloth plan of Lot 1) and “Q” (Technical Description), which were presented by petitioners and became part of the reconstituted decision. These were transmitted to the Land Registration Commission. The reconstitution order was final and unassailable, as petitioners’ appeal was dismissed and their mandamus petition failed.
3. No, the respondent court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of possession. Petitioners’ reliance on Manuel v. Rosauro and Maglasang v. Maceren was misplaced, as those cases involved persons who entered possession after the final decree and were not parties to the registration proceedings. Here, petitioners’ alleged possession arose prior to or during the registration proceedings, and they were original oppositors or their successors-in-interest. A writ of possession can properly issue against original oppositors and their successors. The issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty once a decision becomes final, and no time limit exists for the court to order it.
ACCORDINGLY, the amended petition for certiorari is denied. No costs.