G.R. No. L-34693; March 22, 1991
SALVADOR SERRA SERRA, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents. (Consolidated with G.R. No. L-34080)

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over possession of three parcels of land. Private respondents, the Hernaezes, obtained reconstituted titles over the lots through a cadastral proceeding. Petitioners, the Serras, claiming to be holders of valid titles and in actual possession, filed a motion in the same cadastral case to cancel the reconstituted titles. The motion was denied by Judge Abiera without a hearing. Subsequently, the Hernaezes secured a writ of possession from the same court, which was implemented, dispossessing the Serras. The Serras challenged this via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-00139), which initially issued a preliminary injunction. However, the CA later lifted this injunction.
Simultaneously, a separate civil case (No. 10040) was filed by the Serras against Felipe Garaygay, who had cut sugarcane from the disputed lands under authority from the Hernaezes. In this case, Judge Alampay issued an order dissolving an injunction against Garaygay and later issued a new writ enjoining the Serras themselves from harvesting sugarcane from the properties. This prompted the Serras to file the instant consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent judges committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession and the conflicting injunctions concerning the possession and produce of the disputed properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions. The legal logic centers on the propriety of provisional remedies and the avoidance of conflicting court orders. The Court found that the writ of possession issued by Judge Abiera in the cadastral case was void. A writ of possession is proper only in land registration cases for the placement of the applicant in possession. Here, the Serras, as oppositors claiming ownership and prior possession, were entitled to a hearing on their motion to cancel the reconstituted titles before any writ dispossessing them could issue. Denying the motion without a hearing and issuing the writ constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Furthermore, Judge Alampay committed grave abuse in Civil Case No. 10040. That case was for recovery of personal property (cut sugarcane) and damages, where possession of the land was not the core issue. By enjoining the Serras from harvesting, he effectively ruled on possession, an issue already pending before the Court of Appeals in the certiorari petition (CA-G.R. No. SP-00139). His order directly contravened the Supreme Court’s own preliminary injunction in G.R. No. L-34080, which enjoined the Hernaezes from further dispossessing the Serras. Courts must avoid issuing orders that conflict with those of a superior court regarding the same subject matter and parties. The records were remanded for a proper hearing on the motion to cancel the reconstituted titles, and the Serras were restored to possession pending final resolution.