G.R. No. L-4893
THE PASAY ESTATE CO., LTD., plaintiff, vs. THE HONORABLE SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., defendants.
October 1, 1908

FACTS:
The grantor of The Pasay Estate Co., Ltd. (plaintiff) obtained a final decree from the Court of Land Registration, later confirmed by the Supreme Court, recognizing him as the owner of the Pasay Estate. After the case was remanded, an initial writ of possession was issued, but only a portion of the property was delivered. In July 1908, Pasay Estate applied for an alias writ of possession. The Court of Land Registration, through Judge Simplicio del Rosario (defendant), issued the alias writ but expressly limited its effects to only those persons who, being parties in the former proceeding, had appeared and filed answers therein.

Feeling aggrieved by this limitation, Pasay Estate brought an original action for mandamus before the Supreme Court against Judge del Rosario and certain defendants from the former proceedings who had been served with process but had not appeared or answered. Pasay Estate sought a writ of possession that would cover all defendants who had been duly served with process, regardless of whether they appeared or answered in the original land registration case. The case is now before the Supreme Court for resolution on a demurrer filed by the plaintiff to the judge’s answer.

ISSUE:
Can a writ of possession in a land registration case be issued against persons who, although duly served with process in the original proceeding, failed to appear or answer?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the judge’s theorythat a writ of possession can only be directed against those who appeared, answered, and were “defeated” in the suitcannot be sustained. Section 17 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496, as amended by Act No. 1108) grants the Court of Land Registration the power to enforce its orders, judgments, and decrees, including issuing a writ of possession, in the same manner as a Court of First Instance.

The Court clarified that persons who are duly served with process in a land registration proceeding but fail to appear or answer are just as much “defeated in a suit” as those who actively participated, presented evidence, and had a judgment entered against them. To limit the writ of possession only to those who appeared and answered would defeat the evident purpose of the Land Registration Act, which is to provide a complete and effective remedy. Such a construction would compel a successful litigant in land registration to initiate separate actions (e.g., for ejectment or unlawful detainer) in other courts to gain full possession of the property already confirmed as theirs by decree, thus undermining the finality and efficiency of the land registration system.

Therefore, the plaintiff, The Pasay Estate Co., Ltd., is entitled to the writ of possession it sought, which covers all persons who were duly served with process in the original land registration proceedings, whether or not they appeared or answered. The demurrer to the defendant judge’s answer was sustained, and the judge was given ten days to file an amended answer.