LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
CASE 1: RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT VS. AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM 592
SCRA 201
GR NO: 177181, July 7, 2009
PETITIONER: RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RESPONDENTS: AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM
PONENTE: J. NACHURA
FACTS:
- Rabaja Ranch Development Corporation (petitioner), a domestic corporation, is a holder of Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-88513 covering the subject property particularly identified as Lot 395, Pls 47, with an area of 211,372
square meters more or less, and located at Barangay (Brgy.) Conrazon, Bansud, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro.
- Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) is a government
corporation, which manages the pension fund of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), is a holder of TCT No. T51382 covering the same subject property.
- September 1, 1998, RABAJA filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Removal of Cloud from Title before
the RTC.
o September 6, 1955, Free Patent No. V-19535 (Free Patent) was issued in the name of Jose
Castromero (Jose), registered, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2612 covering the subject
property was issued in the name of Jose.
o Jose sold the subject property to Spouses Sigfriedo and Josephine Veloso (spouses Veloso), and
TCT No. T-17104 was issued in favor of the latter.
o Spouses Veloso, in turn, sold the subject property to RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION for the sum of P 634,116.00 on January 17, 1997, and TCT No. T-88513 was issued in
petitioners name.
- AFP-RSBS averred,
o title over the subject property was protected by the Torrens system, as it was a buyer in good faith and
for value; and that it had been in continuous possession of the subject property since November
1989, way ahead of RABAJA's alleged possession in February 1997.
o April 30, 1966, Homestead Patent No. 113074 (Homestead Patent) was issued in the name of Charles
Soguilon (Charles).
o On May 27, 1966, the Homestead Patent was registered and OCT No. RP-110 (P-6339) was issued in
Charles's name, covering the same property.
o On October 18, 1982, Charles sold the subject property to JMC Farm Incorporated (JMC), which was
then issued TCT No. 18529.
o On August 30, 1985, JMC obtained a loan from AFP-RSBS in the amount of P7,000,000.00, with real
estate mortgage over several parcels of land including the subject property. JMC failed to pay;
hence, after extra-judicial foreclosure and public sale, respondent, being the highest bidder, acquired
the subject property and was issued TCT No. T-51382 in its name. AFP-RSBS contended that from the
time it was issued a title, it took possession of the subject property until RABAJA disturbed AFPRSBS's possession thereof sometime in 1997.
- RTC ruled in favor of the RABAJA on the ground that RABAJA's title emanated from a title older than that of AFPRSBS. Moreover, the RTC held that there were substantial and numerous infirmities in the Homestead Patent
of Charles. The RTC found that there was NO record in the Bureau of Lands that Charles was a homestead
applicant or a grantee of Homestead Patent No. 113074. Upon inquiry, the RTC also found that a
similar Homestead Patent bearing No. V-113074 was actually issued in favor of one Mariano Costales over a parcel of
land with an area of 8.7171 hectares and located in Bunawan, Agusan in Mindanao, per Certification issued by the
Lands Management Bureau dated February 18, 1998. Thus, the RTC held that Charles's Homestead Patent was
fraudulent and spurious, and respondent could not invoke the protection of the Torrens system, because the
system does not protect one who committed fraud or misrepresentation and holds title in bad faith.
- Aggrieved, AFP-RSBS appealed to the CA.
o the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision upon the finding that Charles's Homestead
Patent was earlier registered than Jose's Free Patent. The CA held that Jose slept on his
rights, and thus, respondent had a better right over the subject property. Further, the CA opined that
while it is interesting to note that petitioner's claim that Homestead PatentNo. V-113074 was issued to
Mariano Costales, per Certification issued by the Lands Management Bureau, there is nothing on

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
record which would show that said Homestead Patent No. V-113074 and Homestead Patent No. 113074
granted to Charles were one and the same.
- RABAJA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA, however, denied.
- Filed a petition in SC.
ISSUE:
WON RESPONDENT'S TITLE WHICH ORIGINATED FROM A FAKE AND SPURIOUS HOMESTEAD PATENT, IS SUPERIOR TO
PETITIONER'S TITLE WHICH ORIGINATED FROM A VALID AND EXISTING FREE PATENT. (who, between the petitioner and
respondent, has a better right over the subject property)
HELD:
- Petition is DENIED and the assailed Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED
- Petitioner did not convincingly show that the Homestead Patent issued to Charles is indeed spurious. More
importantly, petitioner failed to prove that respondent took part in the alleged fraud which dated back as early as 1966
when Charles supposedly secured the fake and spurious Homestead Patent.
- In Republic v. Umali, court held that, in a reversion case, even if the original grantee of a patent and title has
obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the land had become private land and the
fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value.
This conclusion rests very firmly on Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529, which states:
SECTION 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of
registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any
person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject,
however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of
land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained
by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be
prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase
occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or
other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of
title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any
case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person
responsible for the fraud. (Underscoring ours)
- No valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless an innocent purchaser for value had intervened. An innocent
purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to or
interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt
of any notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. The protection given to innocent
purchasers for value is necessary to uphold a certificate of title's efficacy and conclusiveness, which
the Torrens system ensures
- AFP-RSBS is an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value. Thus, as far as respondent is concerned, TCT No.
18529, shown to it by JMC, was free from any flaw or defect that could give rise to any iota of doubt that it was fake
and spurious, or that it was derived from a fake or spurious Homestead Patent. Likewise, respondent was not under
any obligation to make an inquiry beyond the TCT itself when, significantly, a foreclosure sale was conducted and
respondent emerged as the highest bidder.
- The general rule that the direct result of a previous void contract cannot be valid will not apply in this case as it will
directly contravene the Torrens system of registration. Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the
certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, this Court cannot disregard such rights and order the
cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such outright cancellation will be to impair public confidence in the
certificate of title. The sanctity of the Torrens system must be preserved; otherwise, everyone dealing with the
property registered under the system will have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly
or irregularly issued, contrary to the evident purpose of the law. Every person dealing with the registered land

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law will, in no way, oblige him to
go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.
- Respondent's transfer certificate of title, having been derived from the Homestead Patent which was registered under
the Torrens system on May 27, 1966, was thus vested with the habiliments of indefeasibility.
OTHER NOTES:
A. Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive.
Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public interests
and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done with an actual design to commit
positive fraud or injury upon other persons.

the

Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic.

Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original
action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein.
The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them
from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant.
B. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court distinguished a Homestead Patent from a Free Patent, to
wit:
Homestead Patent and Free Patent are some of the land patents granted by the government under the Public
Land Act. While similar, they are not exactly the same. A Homestead Patent is one issued to: any citizen of this
country; over the age of 18 years or the head of a family; who is not the owner of more than twenty-four (24) hectares
of land in the Philippines or has not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotment of more than twenty-four (24) hectares
of land since the occupation of the Philippines by the United States. The applicant must show that he has complied
with the residence and cultivation requirements of the law; must have resided continuously for at least one year in the
municipality where the land is situated; and must have cultivated at least one-fifth of the land applied for.
On the other hand, a Free Patent may be issued where the applicant is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines; not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares of land; that he has continuously
occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interests, a tract or tracts
of agricultural public lands subject to disposition for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 6940; and that he has paid the real taxes thereon while the same has not been
occupied by any person.
Homestead Patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens
Title. Verily, Section 103 of P.D. No. 1529 mandates the registration of patents, and such registration is the operative
act to convey the land to the patentee, thus:
Sec. 103.
. . . . . The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee
shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government
and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of
registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this
Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the
land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issuance of
the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under
this Decree.
C. The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands; it is merely a system of registration of titles to
lands. However, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable
effect of the mistake or negligence of the State's agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or
of manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a
stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at
the time of the registration or that may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of
the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who
are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
CASE 2: REPUBLIC VS. LOZADA 90 SCRA 503
GR NO: L-43852 May 31, 1979
PETITIONER-APPELLEE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: TEODOCIA LOZADA
PONENTE: J TEEHANKEE
The Court affirms on appeal the decision of the Pasay City court of first instance granting the Republic's timely petition
for review of the decree of registration and cancelling the certificate of title issued in favor of TEODOCIA LOZADA
because of actual fraud had been employed by the applicant in procuring the title over the lands in question which are
part of the public domain (and not private property as falsely claimed by applicant).
FACTS:
- October 26, 1966 applicant-appellant TEODOCIA LOZADA had filed an application in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal for the registration of, and confirmation to, two parcels of land in LAS PIAS, RIZAL (designated as Lots 2 and
3, Psu 218933, SWO- 40867 in the technical descriptions, with an area of about 390 square meters).

- She asserted the right of inheritance from her deceased parents, couple with alleged continuous and
exclusive possession

- November 16, 1966, the court issued a notice of initial hearing

o

petition was opposed by the Provincial Government of Rizal and the Municipal Government of Las Pias Rizal

The Director of Lands did not deem it necessary at the time to file an opposition to Teodocia Lozada's petition
and returned the records of the case to the court a quo through the Solicitor General. However, the Director of
Lands reserved the right to file his opposition thereto should it be found upon investigation that applicant
Lozada is not entitled to the lots in question

- April 25, 1967, an order of general default was issued by the court a quo, excepting therefrom the Provincial
Government of Rizal and the Municipal Government of Las Pias Rizal.
- The court a quo referred the case to the Municipal Court of Las Pias Rizal because the value of the contested lots
does not exceed
P10,000.00.
- June 26, 1967, upon the ex-parte evidence presented by applicant TEODOCIA LOZADA, the Municipal Court of Las
Pias, Rizal, found applicant Lozada to have a registerable title to the two parcels of land and confirmed the title
thereto. A month later, the municipal court ordered the issuance of the corresponding decree of registration and on
September 7, 1967, Original Certificate of Title No. 6314 in the name of TEODOCIA LOZADA was issued by the
Register of Deeds of Rizal.
- The Solicitor General, within one year from entry of the decree filed a petition for review of the decision and decree of
registration on the ground that applicant Lozada had procured the same by actual fraud.
o she deliberately concealed the fact that the lots in question were covered by Revocable Permit Application No.
15849 and Miscellaneous Sales Application No. V 76845, both in the name of her husband, Felix Cristobal,
and that these applications were rejected by the Bureau of Lands since these lots were reserved for school
site purposes pursuant to Resolution No. 114, Series of 1963, of the Municipal Council of Las Pinas, Rizal
o these lots are portions of the public domain and as such belong to the State and are not subject to
private appropriation and, therefore, not registerable under the Torrens System
- In the decision upon petition for review, the court found the Lozada and her husband had deliberately deceived
the State, a revocable permit application and a sales application which had been rejected because the lands had

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
been reserved for school purposes and that the husband "by not so filing the application for registration of the
property in question and by allowing his wife, applicant Teodocia Lozada, to file the application, the Bureau of
Lands, representing the Republic of the Philippines, was misled.
- Lower
o
o
o
o
o
o

court accordingly rendered judgment on March 30, 1973 in favor of the Republic
Setting aside the decision of the Municipal Court of Las Pias Rizal of June 26, 1967
Declaring the property in question to be part of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines
Dismissing the registration application of Teodocia Lozada
Ordering applicant Teodocia Lozada to surrender Original Certificate of Title No. 6314 of the Province of Rizal to
the Register of Deeds of said Province and that the same may be cancelled
Ordering the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal to cancel the aforementioned Original Certificate of Title
No. 6314
Ordering Felix Cristobal and Teodocia Lozada to vacate immediately the property in question

- Lozada appealed to the Court of Appeals, however certified the appeal to SC, since it involves question of law.
ISSUE:
WON LOZADA IS ENTITLED OF A TCT COMMITED THROUGH FRAUD
HELD:
Appellant Lozada (and her husband Felix Cristobal) were clearly guilty of fraud
(1) in not disclosing in her application for registration the vital facts that her husband's previous application for a
revocable permit and to purchase the lands in question from the Bureau of Lands had been rejected, because the
lands were already reserved as a site for school purposes;
(2) in thus concealing the fact that the lands were part of the public domain and so known to them;
(3) in stating the deliberate falsehood that the lands were allegedly inherited by her from her parents; and
(4) in filing the application for registration in the name of appellant Lozada and not in that of her husband Felix
Cristobal or the two of them jointly, thus suppressing the fact that Felix Cristobal already had a record in the Bureau of
Lands of having filed a rejected application for the same lands, all of which misled the Bureau of Lands into not filing
an opposition to her application and as aptly observed by the lower court "effectively deprived (the Republic) of its day
in court.

I. Lozada is guilty of extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud [which] connotes any
fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or his
agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said
defeated party is prevent from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.
Or intrinsic fraud [which] takes the form of acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just
determination of the case, " 3
but will not would not alter the result because the mistake and error into which the officials of the Bureau of Lands were
misled by such a deliberately false application, suppressing the facts known to the applicant that the lands sought to
be registered were lands of the public domain (and not private property) and having been reserved for a school site
were not susceptible of private registration (as in fact her husband's application to purchase the same had been

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
rejected) cannot operate to bar the Republic's timely petition to review and set aside the decree, since the State
cannot be estopped by the mistake or error of its officials and agents.

II. WRONG VENUE

Th
e registration decree was properly voided by the lower court since it had no jurisdiction over the lands of the
public domain subject matter of the proceedings which were portions of the bed or foreshore of the Las Pias river and
were not open to registration proceedings.

III. Piero vs. Director of Lands

The indefeasibility of a title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the Director of
Lands as to how such title has been acquired, if the purpose of such investigation is to determine
whether or not fraud had been committed in securing such title in order that the appropriate action for
reversion may be filed by the Government.

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
CASE 3: RODIL VS. BENEDICTO 95 SCRA 137
WRIT OF POSSESSION
GR NO: L-28616 January 22, 1980
PETITIONER: TOMAS RODIL and the deceased spouse CATALINA CRUZ, substituted by her heirs, namely: VIVENCIO
RODIL married to ZUEKO MATSUO CONSOLACION RODIL married to FRANCISCO HEMEDES DOMICIANO RODIL married
to VIRGINIA MARALIT, CLARITA RODIL married to JUAN ALGIER NATALIA RODIL married to SILVINIANO ATIENZA, LYDIA
RODIL married to CARLOS HORILLENO VEDASTO RODIL married to TESSIE MANGUBAT and CELIA RODIL married to
MACARIO TIU JR
RESPONDENTS: HON. JUDGE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO as Judge of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA,
BRANCH V-GAPAN and the heirs of ALEJANDRO ABES, namely: ALEJO ABES, BIENVENIDO ABES, ROSITA ABES, married
to MATEO MALLARI, FIDELA ABES, married to PONCIANO ATENIDO, DAVID ABES, MARCELO ABES, NICANOR ABES,
SEVERINO ABES, JOVITA ABES, married to GIL CABRETA EUFROCINA ABES, married to ROMULO BOTE; LOURDES ABES,
married to ALIPIO TAGNIPIS LUZ ABES, TEODORA ABES, EMITERIO ABES, JR., GREGORIO ABES, ERLINDA ABES, married
to LUIS TAAL, RENATO ABES, ESTRELLITA TALPLACIDO REYNALDO ABES, TERESITA ABES, CAROLINA ABES, and
FERNANDO ABES; the latter four who are minors are represented by their mother CRISPINA DOMINGO
PONENTE: J CONCEPCION JR.
Petition for mandamus to direct the respondent Judge to order the issuance of a writ of possession against the
respondents (Benedicto and heirs of ALEJANDRO ABES) in Cadastral Case over Lots No. 2417, 3423, 3424, 3753
and 3754 located in Penaranda, Nueva Ecija.
FACTS:
- Lot Nos. 2417, 3423, 3424, 3753 and 3754 of the Penaranda (Nueva Ecija) Cadastre were claimed and applied for
by the spouses TOMAS RODIL and CATALINA CRUZ.
o claim was not contested
o October 11, 1958, the cadastral court adjudicated the aforesaid lots in favor of the applicants
o December 10, 1958, pursuant to the decree of registration, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1719 was
issued to the applicants
- February 26, 1959, the HEIRS OF ALEJANDRO ABES filed a petition with the court for the review of the registration
decree upon the ground "that they are the true owners and are the ones in actual legal possession of the aforesaid
land and that the award of said lots to claimant-spouses was secured thru fraud.
- July 7, 1961, the cadastral court denied the petition for review upon the ground that the petitioners failed to
overcome the evidence of the claimants-adjudicatees.
- September 4, 1961, the heirs of Alejandro Abes filed an action against the registered owners for the reconveyance of
title, claiming that Tomas Rodil and his wife procured registration of the land "thru fraud, misrepresentation and
the use of falsified deeds of sale.
- TOMAS RODIL filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground of res adjudicata and on December 13, 1962.
- THE HEIRS OF ALEJANDRO ABES filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order, but the court denied the
motion on January 16, 1963.
- Upon the return of the records to the lower court, TOMAS RODIL and CATALINA CRUZ filed a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession asking that they be placed in possession of the lots and that the heirs of Alejandro
Abes be evicted therefrom.
- The respondent Judge issued an order granting the petition only with respect to Alejo Abes, Bienvenido Abes, Teodora
Vda. de Abes, and Cornelio Abes and denied the same with respect to the other respondents stating that he is
completely at a loss as to who, aside from the mentioned, who are parties to the original cadastral proceeding or as to
who were at least occupants of the properties in question prior to the issuance of the decree of registration.
- A writ of possession was issued on April 19, 1967.
- THE ABES filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order upon the ground:
1) the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed out of time; and
2) there is no allegation in the petition, and neither had it been proved, that the respondents were defeated in
a registration proceeding, or that they were adversely occupying the land during the registration proceedings,
or that they were unlawfully and adversely occupying the land at any time up to the issuance of the final
decree, or that they were one of those against whom a writ of possession may be issued
- Respondent Judge set aside its order of April 11, 1967 and ordered the dissolution of the writ of possession issued.

LTD CASE DIGESTS 02132016

Caveat Emptor - Buyers (of my ideas) beware. Read at your own risk. These digests is for recitation purposes. - JC
- The spouses Tomas Rodil and Catalina Cruz filed a motion for the reconsideration of said order, but the respondent
Judge denied the motion.
- Review of SC / instant petition.
ISSUE:
HELD:
- The petition for mandamus is hereby granted and the respondent Judge or anyone acting in his stand is directed to
issue said writ of possession over Lot Nos. 2417, 3423, 3424, 3753, and 3754 of the Penaranda Cadastre in favor of the
petitioners.
- The respondent Judge committed an error in denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. The
findings of the respondent Judge that a writ of possession cannot be issued in the cadastral case because the
respondents were not parties in said registration proceedings, or that they were not occupants of the land during the
registration proceedings prior to the issuance of the final decree of registration is not supported by the evidence
and law.
o The respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes cannot be strangers to the registration proceedings. A
cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against everybody, including the respondents, who
are deemed included in the general order of default entered in the case.
o Heirs of Alejandro Abes filed a petition for the review of the decree of registration, thereby becoming a
direct party in the registration proceedings by their voluntary appearance
- The respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes, being in possession of the lots in question, unlawfully and adversely, during
the registration proceedings, may be judicially evicted by means of a writ of possession and it is the duty of the
registration court to issue said writ when asked for by the successful claimant.
- The respondents claim that the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed out of time, the said petition
having been filed more than five years after the issuance of the final decree of registration.
- The Court also ruled that the provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within five
years by motion, and after five years but within ten years by an action (Section 6, Rule 39) refers to civil actions and is
not applicable to special proceedings, such as land registration cases.
- In special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the
ownership by a person or a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and
confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the
adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
- There is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39 regarding the execution of a judgment in a
civil action, except to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land
registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession adverse or losing party, on becomes final without
any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appear.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for mandamus is hereby granted and the respondent Judge or anyone acting
in his stand is directed to issue said writ of possession over Lot Nos. 2417, 3423, 3424, 3753, and 3754 of the
Penaranda Cadastre in favor of the petitioners with costs against the private respondents.