Rodil vs. Hon.
Judge Mariano Benedicto and the Heirs of Alejandro Abes Issue: Whether or not the Writ of Possession was filed out of time?
G. R. No. L-28616
January 22, 1980
J. Concepcion, Jr.
Facts:
1. That Petitioner Spouses Rodil claimed and applied for the subject
parcel of land located in Nueva Ecija
a. The claim was not contested
b. October 11, 1958, the cadastral court adjudicated the
aforesaid lots in favor of the applicant
c. Original Certificate of Title was issued – December 10,
1958
2. February 26, 1959, heirs of Alejandro Abes, filed a petition with the
court for the review of the registration decree, on the grounds that:
a. Petitioners are true owners
b. They are the ones in actual legal possession
c. The spouses acquired the land through fraud
3. The cadastral court denied the petition for failure to present
evidences against the spouses
a. No appeal was taken by the heirs
4. Instead, on September 4, 1961, the heirs of Alejandro Abes
instituted an action for reconveyance of title against the spouses
a. Invoked the same grounds
b. Case was dismissed because of res judicata – affirmed by
the SC
5. Upon the return of records to the lower court
a. Spouses filed for Writ of Possession
b. Judge denied and granted the petition of Motion for
Reconsideration of the Heirs
i. Because he is at a loss as to who, aside from the
heirs were parties to the original cadastral
proceeding or as to who were at least occupants
of the properties
6. Heirs filed a motion for reconsideration
a. Petition for the Writ of Possession was filed out of time
b. No allegation in the petition, neither had it been approved
during the proceedings or any time up to the issuance of
the final decree, or that they were against those whom a
writ of possession may be made
c. Granted by the Judge – order for the dissolution of the Writ
7. Hence this petition
Who are the real parties in a Cadastral proceeding?
Held:
Writ of Possession
The right of the applicant or a subsequent purchaser to ask for the issuance
of a Writ of Possession of the land never prescribes (Manlapas and
Tolentino vs. Lorente). The Court also ruled that the provision in the Rules
Of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5years by
motion, and after five years but within 10years by and action (Section 6, Rule
39) refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings
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.
Furthermore, 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,
becomes final without any further action, upon the
expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal."
Parties to the Cadastral Proceeding
The respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes cannot be said to be strangers to
the registration proceedings. A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in
rem and against everybody, including the respondents herein, who are
deemed included in the general order of default entered in the case.
Besides, it appears that the said respondent 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.
Petition, granted