G.R. No. L-23509 June 23, 1966
NATY BALTAZAR, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellees, vs. SILVINA CARIDAD, ET AL., defendants and appellants.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 54, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte rendered a decision on January 23, 1941, awarding Lot No. 8864 to the spouses Julio Baltazar and Constancia Valencia. The decision became final, a decree was issued on July 12, 1941, and the lot was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. O-1445. Julio Baltazar died. On December 6, 1961, his surviving wife and children (petitioners/appellees) filed a motion in the cadastral case for a writ of possession against Silvina Caridad and her daughter Eduarda Caridad (respondents/appellants), who had been in possession of the southern portion of the lot since 1939, during the pendency of the cadastral case. The court granted the writ on December 11, 1961, and it was enforced on January 2, 1962, placing petitioners in possession. Subsequently, on January 23, 1962, petitioners filed a motion to compel respondents to remove their respective houses, which were built in 1958 and 1959 on the disputed portion. The trial court granted the motion on March 20, 1962, ordering removal within thirty days. Respondents appealed, arguing the cadastral court lacked jurisdiction to order removal, that they were builders in good faith entitled to rights under Article 448 of the Civil Code, and that the proper remedy was an ordinary ejectment action or that the issue should be resolved in a pending reconveyance action (Civil Case No. 3451) they filed.

ISSUE

Whether the cadastral court, after issuing a final decree of registration, retains jurisdiction to order the removal of houses built by the successors-in-interest of a defeated oppositor on the disputed land.

RULING

Yes. The appealed order is affirmed. The cadastral court has the jurisdiction and authority to order the removal of the houses as a complement to the writ of possession. The provisions of the Rules of Court apply suppletorily to land registration cases. Under Section 13, Rule 39 of the old Rules (now Section 14, Rule 39), a special order of the court is required for the demolition of improvements made by a defendant, which may issue after due hearing and upon the defendant’s failure to remove them within a reasonable time. The court, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 124 (now Section 6, Rule 135), has the power to employ all auxiliary writs and processes necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect. Furthermore, every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within its jurisdiction. Requiring the successful litigant in a land registration case to institute a separate action for possession or demolition would foster unnecessary litigation and multiplicity of suits. Respondents cannot be considered builders in good faith because they are bound by the 1941 decree of registration that obligated their predecessors-in-interest. Good faith must rest on a colorable right, not a mere belief in one’s title despite judicial adjudication. The fact that they built new houses in 1958 and 1959 does not weaken the rights of the registered owners.