G.R. No. L-9953 - Abulocion vs. Court of 1st Instance of Iloilo

A land registration case (No. V-5, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 55804) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, covering Lots 1 and 2 described in Plan Psu-38526, located in Dangola-an, Anilao, Iloilo.
The applicants were Alfredo Apurada and the heirs of Benedicto Apurada, while the oppositors included Pablo Arandilla, Santiago Arandilla, and the Directors of Lands, Forestry, and Fisheries.
The court rendered a decision (Annex D) decreeing Lots 1 and 2 in favor of the applicants, except for a 12-hectare fishpond area within Lot No. 1, which was adjudicated to the Arandilla oppositors.
All parties appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision regarding Lot No. 2 but reversed it for Lot No. 1, declaring the entire Lot No. 1 as public land (Annex E, February 21, 1955).

In August 1955, Agustin Abulocion learned that Lot No. 1 was declared public land and filed an application with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources for a lease or fishpond permit for the area he possessed within Lot No. 1.
He was informed that a 10-hectare portion of Lot No. 1 was covered by a fishpond permit issued to respondent Carlos Legislador on July 15, 1955.
Abulocion requested an investigation by the Bureau of Fisheries to cancel Legislador's permit, and a hearing was scheduled but postponed to November 16, 1955.

On August 17, 1955, the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo, representing the Director of Fisheries, filed an ex-parte motion for a writ of possession to place Legislador or his administrator in possession of the fishpond area.
The court granted the motion, and the writ was executed on August 18, 1955, delivering possession to Legislador's representative, Marcelino Montano.
The Abulocion spouses claimed they had spent considerable money on the fishpond and had been in possession since 1944, having acquired rights from the Apurada heirs.
They filed a motion to set aside the writ of possession, but it was denied by the court on September 6, 1955.

Legislador filed a motion for contempt against the petitioners on September 7, 1955, which was postponed indefinitely.
On November 4, 1955, the court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and cited them to appear on November 12, 1955, to answer the contempt charge.
The hearing was again postponed as the petitioners announced their intention to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

The petitioners sought to declare null and void the writ of possession and related orders, arguing that the writ was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
They also requested a preliminary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession of the land.

Respondent Carlos Legislador claimed he had been in possession of the fishpond area under a government permit since 1932.
He argued that Abulocion took possession of the area after March 1950 and that any expenses incurred by Abulocion were for ordinary repairs.
Legislador asserted that Abulocion could not have acquired the area from the Apurada heirs, as they had no rights over the land, which was declared public.
He also stated that the writ of possession was issued at the request of the Director of Fisheries, who had the authority to administer public lands.

Writ of Possession: A writ of possession may be issued not only against the defeated party in a registration case but also against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the proceedings. The issuance of the writ is part of the registration proceedings and is sanctioned by law.
Possession of Public Land: The government has the right to deliver possession of public land to the person deemed most qualified, and in this case, Carlos Legislador, as the long-standing permitee, had a better right to possession than the petitioners.
Contempt Charge: The respondent court has the authority to proceed with the contempt charge, as the petitioners allegedly violated the court's order.
Jurisdiction: The court acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the writ of possession, and there was no grave abuse of discretion.