Facts:

• Case: Co v. Salvador
• Date: March 18, 1983
• Case Number: G.R. No. L-46239
• Presiding Judge: Hon. Judge Serafin Salvador
• Lower Court: Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XIV, Caloocan City, Metro Manila
• Respondents: Allan Hernandez, spouses Eduardo R. Memije and Adelaida H. Memije
• Petitioners: Spouses Romeo P. Co and Marcelita P. Co
• Respondents purchased a house and lot in Concepcion, Malabon, Rizal from Ruperto Padonan and were issued TCT 457594
• Property was still in possession of Ruperto Padonan and the petitioners who acquired the property from Padonan in 1973
• Respondents filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession and asked to be placed in possession of the property
• Respondent judge ordered the issuance of a writ of possession, provided a cash bond be posted to guarantee expenses for the removal of Padonan's personal properties
• Writ of possession was served on Padonan, but he was no longer residing on the property
• Property was occupied by the petitioners who refused to leave
• Another writ of possession was issued, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises
• Petitioners filed an omnibus motion to quash the writ of possession and to restrain the Sheriff from enforcing it
• Petitioners argued that the respondents were not entitled to a writ of possession under Act 496 since the petitioners occupied the property long after the issuance of the decree of registration
• Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the writ of possession was not asked nor issued in a land registration case, but in a plenary action for possession

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled that a writ of possession does not lie in registration proceedings when those against whom it is sought to be enforced have acquired and are in possession of the land after the judgment of adjudication was issued.
• The court also ruled that the respondent judge's denial of the omnibus motion was without basis, as the motion for the issuance of the writ of possession was filed as an incident to the land registration case.
• The court emphasized that in order to recover ownership or possession of the land possessed by a third person, it is indispensable to resort to proceedings established by law.
• The petitioners, who had been in possession of the dispu...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• A writ of possession does not apply in registration proceedings when the occupants acquired and are in possession of the land after the judgment of adjudication was issued.
• The denial of the omnibus motion to quash the writ of possession was without basis, as the motion was filed as an incident to the land registrati...continue reading