GR L 28201; (December, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28201 December 14, 1979
EVARISTO COLOMA, MODESTA COLOMA, AMADEA COLOMA, NICOLASA COLOMA, VICTORIO COLOMA and FORTUNATA COLOMA, petitioners, vs. HON. PLACIDO C. RAMOS, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, 4th Judicial District, Guimba Branch, and Spouses JESUS T. GARCIA and DIONISIA DOMINGO, respondents.
FACTS
This case involves a petition for a writ of possession in Cadastral Case No. 22. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in a 1959 decision, ordered the registration of Lot 2541 in favor of Maria Lucas and her six children, the Coloma petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 1964, and the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petition for review. After the record was remanded, the Colomas filed a motion for a writ of possession, alleging the Garcia spouses were in possession of the lot.
The Garcia spouses filed a separate petition to review the 1959 decision on the ground of fraud, which the lower court denied in an October 1966 order, reasoning the fraud issues had already been resolved. However, the court suspended action on the writ of possession due to a pending claim by the Philippine National Railways over a subdivision lot. The Garcias appealed the denial of their review petition. Citing this pending appeal, the lower court, in its July 11, 1967 order, denied the Colomas’ petition for a writ of possession, prompting this certiorari and mandamus action.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion for a writ of possession.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and directed the issuance of the writ of possession. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgment and the inherent power of the registration court. The sole basis for the lower court’s denial of the writ was the pendency of the Garcias’ appeal from the order denying their petition for review. This appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court in February 1968 for non-compliance with procedural rules, and the dismissal became final. Consequently, the obstacle cited by the lower court ceased to exist, rendering its refusal to issue the writ baseless.
The Court reiterated established doctrine that the power to issue a writ of possession in a land registration case is sanctioned by statute and the rules of court. Crucially, a judgment in a land registration case that adjudicates ownership inherently carries with it the right to possession, as possession is a necessary attribute of ownership. It is the ministerial duty of the registration court to issue the writ upon application by the successful claimant after the judgment has become final and executory. Since all impediments had been removed with the final dismissal of the Garcias’ appeal, the Colomas were entitled to the writ as a matter of right to enforce the final judgment in their favor.