G.R. No. L-45255 November 14, 1986
HEIRS OF MARCIANA G. AVILA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and ALADINO CH. BACARRISAS, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a cadastral proceeding where Lot 594 was initially adjudicated to Paz Chavez. Due to tax delinquency, the lot was sold at public auction in 1940, and Marciana G. Avila, a public school teacher, purchased it and received a final bill of sale from the Provincial Treasurer. This purchase violated Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibited public school teachers from buying delinquent properties, but the government did not initially contest the sale. In 1947, Original Certificates of Title were issued to Chavez. Avila successfully petitioned the cadastral court for a review of the decree, leading to a 1974 Court of Appeals decision that modified the lower court’s ruling. The CA affirmed the annulment of Chavez’s title but disallowed the registration of Lot 594 in Avila’s name due to the legal prohibition, leaving the ownership status unresolved.
Upon remand, the Avila heirs moved for a writ of possession. This was opposed by Aladino Bacarrisas, Chavez’s successor-in-interest, who was in actual possession. The trial court issued the writ, but the Court of Appeals, in a 1976 decision, granted Bacarrisas’s certiorari petition and set it aside. The CA ruled that since registration in Avila’s name was disallowed, there was no legal basis for issuing a writ of possession in her heirs’ favor. The Avila heirs then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the writ of possession issued to the heirs of Marciana Avila for Lot 594.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the consequence of the prohibition under Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court held that Marciana Avila’s purchase was illegal. Applying Article 1412 of the Civil Code, a party to an illegal contract cannot recover or enforce its terms. Therefore, she could not be considered a “successful claimant” in a registration sense. A writ of possession is a remedy inherent to a decree of registration or a judgment confirming title, issued to place the successful applicant in possession. Since the Court of Appeals had explicitly disallowed the registration of the lot in Avila’s name, no such decree or confirmatory judgment existed in her favor. The annulment of Chavez’s title did not automatically translate into an adjudication of ownership or a right to possession for Avila. Consequently, the trial court had no legal basis to issue the writ of execution for possession. The property, due to the statutory violation, effectively had no clear owner and could be subject to appropriate state action, such as escheat. The Court also found certiorari to be the proper remedy to challenge the writ’s issuance.