Facts:

The case revolves around Agustin Abulocion, Anacreta de Abulocion, and Fabio Burgos as petitioners against the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, and Carlos Legislador as respondents. It started with a land registration case (No. V-5, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 55804) concerning Lots 1 and 2 situated in the sitio and barrio of Dangola-an, Anilao, Iloilo. Applicants Alfredo Apurada and the heirs of Benedicto Apurada sought registration of these lots against oppositors Pablo and Santiago Arandilla, and the Directors of Lands, Forestry, and Fisheries. The court decision favored the applicants for Lot 2 but declared Lot 1 public land, awarding a 12-hectare fishpond area within Lot 1 to the oppositors. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals but reversed regarding Lot 1's public land status in a later ruling on February 21, 1955.

In August 1955, Abulocion discovered that Lot 1 was public land. He applied for a lease or fishpond permit but learned

...

Facts:

Background of the Land Registration Case

• The original case involved the registration of Lots 1 and 2 as shown in Plan Psu-38526, situated in the sitio and barrio of Dangola-an, Municipality of Anilao, Iloilo.
• The matter was originally filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Land Registration Case No. V-5, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 55804) with applicants Alfredo Apurada and the heirs of Benedicto Apurada versus oppositors Pablo Arandilla, Santiago Arandilla, and the Directors of Lands, Forestry and Fisheries.
• The decision granted Lot No. 2 in favor of the applicants and decreed Lot No. 1 in favor of the applicants in part—with an exception: the 12-hectare fishpond area within Lot No. 1 was adjudicated to oppositors Santiago and Pablo Arandilla.

Appeals and Subsequent Developments

• All parties appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court.
• The appellate decision affirmed the decision regarding Lot No. 2 but reversed the disposition over Lot No. 1 by declaring the entire Lot No. 1 as public land.

Emergence of the Fishpond Permit Controversy

• In early August 1955, Agustin Abulocion, one of the petitioners, learned that Lot No. 1 had been declared public land.
• Abulocion filed an application with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources for either a lease or a fishpond permit over the part of Lot No. 1 he possessed.
• The Bureau of Fisheries responded by informing him that 10 hectares of the Lot was already covered by a fishpond permit issued on July 15, 1955 in favor of respondent Carlos Legislador—a priest.

Precipitous Judicial and Administrative Actions

• Agustin Abulocion, through counsel, requested an investigation into the conflicting claims over the 10-hectare portion, aiming to cancel the fishpond permit reportedly issued in favor of Carlos Legislador.
• The investigation was scheduled for hearing before the District Fishery Officer of Iloilo but was postponed by agreement to November 16, 1955.
• Meanwhile, on August 17, 1955, the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo—acting on behalf of the Director of Fisheries—filed an ex-parte motion with the Court requesting a writ of possession.
• The motion sought to have the respondent Sheriff place Rev. Fr. Carlos Legislador or his administrator, Marcelino Montano, in possession of the fishpond area covered by Special Use Permit F-37-A.
• On the same day (August 17, 1955), Judge Felixberto Imperial Reyes issued the order for the writ of possession.
• On August 18, 1955, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff, Juan F. Carreon, executed and served the writ of possession:
• The writ was served on petitioners’ spouses, Custodio Apil (one of the Apurada heirs), and on petitioner Fabio Burgos (the watcher of the Abulocions).
• Possession of the fishpond area was thereby transferred to Marcelino Montano, the representative of respondent Carlos Legislador, who subsequently issued a receipt as evidence of transfer.

Petitioners' Response and Subsequent Court Motions

• The Abulocion spouses contended that they had spent considerable sums for constructing improvements (a fishpond) on the area and had in fact been in possession of the fishpond area since 1944.
• They claimed such possession was based on having acquired rights through cession and purchase from the heirs of Benedicto and Alfredo Apurada.
• The petitioners filed an urgent motion with the same Court seeking to set aside the order and rescind the writ of possession.
• Their motion was filed and later amended; however, it was denied by the Court on September 6, 1955.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
• In response, on September 7, 1955, respondent Carlos Legislador filed a motion for contempt against the petitioners.
• Although the Court initially set a hearing to explain the contempt charge, it postponed the hearing in light of pending motions for reconsideration.
• After further postponements, on November 4, 1955, a motion for reconsideration by petitioners was again denied.
• The petitioners were later cited on November 12, 1955, in relation to the contempt charge.
• Petitioners announced their intention to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the writ of possession had been issued without proper jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Relief Sought by Petitioners

• The petitioners prayed that:
• The order dated August 17, 1955, directing the issuance of the writ of possession be declared null and void.
• All orders and actions of the respondent Court and the Provincial Sheriff which related to the writ of possession be annulled.
• Additionally, they sought a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their allegedly peaceful possession of the land.

Respondent’s Position

• Carlos Legislador, in his answer, asserted:
• He had been in possession of the fishpond area under a government permit since 1932.
• When Agustin Abulocion took possession post-March 1950, the improvements on the property already belonged to Legislador.
• The petitioners could not claim acquisition of the area from the Apurada heirs due to the absence of any documented transaction, compounded by the fact that the heirs had been defeated in the registration case.
• It was further argued that the issuance of the writ of possession was proper because it was made at the instance of the Director of Fisheries, who preferred that the area be delivered to the recognized government permitee (Legislador) rather than the government agency.
• Legislative and administrative permits related to the fishpond, including renewals up to 1949, supported Legislador’s prolonged and uninterrupted possession.

Issue:

Legality of the Writ of Possession

• Whether the order issued on August 17, 1955, for the writ of possession directing the respondent Sheriff to place Carlos Legislador in possession of the fishpond area is illegal.
• The issue arises given that Legislador was neither a formal party in the original land registration case nor a successor in interest of the original parties.

Rightful Claim to Possession

• Which party has a superior right to the possession and enjoyment of the fishpond area—the petitioners (Abulocion spouses and associates) or respondent Carlos Legislador?
• Consideration is given to the fact that the land in question had been declared public land by prior decision.

Authority to Initiate Contempt Proceedings

• Whether respondent Carlos Legislador, who is not a party to the original registration case and who is not the owner or successor of the registered title, has the standing to file a motion for contempt against the petitioners.

Petitioners’ Liability for Contempt

• Whether the petitioners may be held liable for contempt of court for allegedly violating the court’s order related to the writ of possession.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)