Facts:

The case involves the Bishop of Legaspi as the petitioner and Hon. Manuel Calleja, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, along with Concepcion H. Luna and Ignacio A. Luna as respondents. The events leading to this case began in 1947 when Rev. Father Martin Alcazar applied for the registration of several parcels of land located in the municipalities of Pilar and Castilla in Sorsogon. The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon granted the application, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1952. Consequently, Original Certificate of Title No. O-32 was issued in Father Alcazar's name on July 14, 1953.

On January 19, 1954, the Bishop of Legaspi filed a deed of sale executed by Father Alcazar in favor of Msgr. Pedro P. Santos, the then Bishop of Nueva Caceres, along with a sworn statement and a deed of cession from Msgr. Santos to the Bishop of Legaspi. Following the registration of these documents, Original Certificate of Title No. O-32 was canc...

Facts:

Background of the Case:

• In 1947, Rev. Father Martin Alcazar applied for the registration of several parcels of land in the municipalities of Pilar and Castilla, Sorsogon.
• The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon granted the application, and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1952.
• On July 14, 1953, Decree No. 0-32 and Original Certificate of Title No. O-32 were issued in the name of Father Alcazar.

Transfer of Ownership:

• On January 19, 1954, Father Alcazar executed a deed of sale in favor of Msgr. Pedro P. Santos, the Bishop of Nueva Caceres.
• Msgr. Santos then executed a deed of cession in favor of the petitioner, the Bishop of Legaspi.
• Upon registration of these documents, Original Certificate of Title No. O-32 was canceled, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 656 was issued in the name of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Caceres.
• Subsequently, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 656 was canceled, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 657 was issued in the name of the petitioner, the Bishop of Legaspi.

Challenge to the Transfer:

• On April 20, 1954, respondents Concepcion H. Luna and Ignacio A. Luna, along with 17 others, filed Special Civil Action No. 879 against Msgr. Santos and the Bishop of Legaspi.
• The respondents claimed that 16 of them were heirs of Father Alcazar, and the others were their spouses.
• They argued that the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. O-32 and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 656 and 657 were illegal because Msgr. Santos’s rights over the property ceased upon the issuance of the original title.
• The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision on December 19, 1957.

Motion for Writ of Possession:

• On March 11, 1958, the petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession against the respondents.
• The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon initially granted the motion but later set it aside on June 23, 1958, ruling that more than five years had elapsed since the final judgment in the land registration case, making the issuance of the writ improper under the rule in Sorongan vs. Makalintal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Nature of a Writ of Possession:

   • A writ of possession in land registration cases is available only against the person defeated in the registration case or against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
   • It cannot be used against the registered owner, their representatives, or successors in interest.

2. Possession by an Agent:

   • Mr. Luna’s possession of the property was as an administrator appointed by Father Alcazar, making his possession legally equivalent to Father Alcazar’s possession.
   • Therefore, Father Alcazar could not have obtained a writ of possession against Mr. Luna, as it would amount to using the writ against himself.

3. Limitation on Writ of Possession:

   • The Court did not need to resolve whether the five-year limitation applied or whether the period was suspended, as the petitioner’s claim failed on the merits.
   • The petitioner’s rights are derivative of Father Alcazar’s rights, and since Father Alcazar could not have obtained the writ, neither can the petitioner.

4. Appropriate Remedies:

   • The petitioner may seek relief through other appropriate legal proceedings, such as an action for specific performance or ejectment, but not through a writ of possession.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of possession against the respondents. The Court emphasized that the writ of possession is not available against a party who holds the property as an agent or representative of the registered owner. The petitioner’s rights are limited to those of Father Alcazar, who could not have obtained the writ against his own administrator.