G.R. No. 92649 - Spouses Badua vs. Cordillera Bodong Administration

Petitioners: Emiliano Gawaran, Magdalena Gawaran, Delfin Gawaran, Fernando Gawaran, Augusto Gawaran, and Virginia Gawaran, in their own behalf and in substitution of the deceased oppositor, Feliciana Gervasio, widow of Gawaran.
Respondents:

The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court (Third Special Cases Division) under Judge Alejandro C. Silapan.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch XVI, Cavite City.
Private respondents who had filed for registration and confirmation of title.

In 1959, private respondents filed an application for the registration and confirmation of title over Lot 2, PSU-173975, situated in Digman, Bacoor, Cavite.

The application involved four lots, but opposition was raised solely with respect to Lot No. 2 where petitioners had built their residential house and a “camarin.”

At the trial level, the trial court awarded Lot No. 2 to the oppositors (petitioners).
Private respondents appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision and confirmed the ownership of Lot No. 2 in the names of private respondents.
Subsequent actions included:

Petitioners’ appeal to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 56312, which was dismissed with entry of judgment on May 24, 1982.
Issuance on January 13, 1984, of an order for a decree in favor of private respondents, resulting in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2123 that included Lot No. 2.

Despite the issuance of the title, petitioners managed to continuously occupy Lot No. 2.
On March 19, 1985, at the motion of private respondents, the Regional Trial Court issued a writ of possession accompanied by a special order:

The order mandated that petitioners dismantle and remove their building and “camarin” from Lot No. 2 under penalty of demolition.
Petitioners were directed to vacate the premises in favor of the private respondents within thirty (30) days.

Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the then Intermediate Appellate Court challenging the writ of possession and demolition order.
They contended that:

The declaration and adjudication of ownership in a land registration case inherently include the right to possession.
The dismissal of their petition allowed the dismantling and demolition of improvements built in good faith, thereby violating their substantial rights and denying them reimbursement or indemnification.

Whether the respondent appellate court erred in holding that, in a land registration case, the declaration and adjudication of ownership inherently carry with it the right of possession over the registered property.
Whether the dismissal of the petition, which consequently allowed the private respondents to dismantle and demolish the structures built in good faith by petitioners, violated the petitioners’ substantial rights and the tenets of law regarding good faith possession and builder’s retention rights.