G.R. No. 22451 ; February 28, 1964
GILBERT SEMON, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PIO R. MARCOS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City and the HEIRS OF SIOCO CARIÑO, represented by PAULITA CARIÑO, Administrator, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a land registration proceeding concerning a large parcel of approximately 100 hectares filed by the heirs of Sioco Cariño. Within the perimeter of this larger tract, petitioners Gilbert Semon and others claimed ownership of smaller, individual lots, which they described as “scattered within the said parcel of land.” In their amended opposition to the Cariños’ application, the petitioners asserted under oath that they had been in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and peaceful possession of their respective lots.
During the pendency of the registration case, the petitioners filed a motion on January 9 and August 25, 1963, seeking authority from the court to conduct a survey of their individual lots. The presiding judge, Hon. Pio R. Marcos, denied this motion in an Order dated February 8, 1963. Aggrieved by this denial, the petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari, alleging that the respondent judge acted arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to grant them leave to survey the properties they claimed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioners’ motion for authority to survey the lots they claim within the larger parcel subject to registration.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and dismissed the case. The Court’s ruling was anchored on a straightforward legal logic derived from the petitioners’ own sworn allegations. The petitioners had expressly declared under oath in their amended opposition that they were in “actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and peaceful possession” of the disputed lots. This factual assertion, accepted as true for the purpose of resolving the petition, carried a direct legal implication regarding their rights over the property.
The Court reasoned that if the petitioners were indeed in such lawful and recognized possession as they claimed, then they possessed a correlative right to undertake acts necessary for the maintenance, proof, and protection of their possession. Conducting a survey is one such act incidental to the exercise of ownership or possession. Consequently, the petitioners did not require prior judicial authorization to survey land they allegedly owned and possessed. Their right to do so existed independently of the court’s permission. Should any person, including the opposing applicants, unlawfully impede the exercise of this right, the petitioners’ proper recourse was to seek a remedy in the competent court for the enforcement or protection of their possessory rights, not to compel the registration court to grant them leave to act. Therefore, the respondent judge’s denial of the motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion but was a correct application of the legal principle that one in lawful possession may act to assert that possession without first securing court approval.