G.R. No. 24804 - Manlapas vs. Llorente

In approximately 1906, the "Corporacion Franciscana de la Provincia de San Gregorio Magno" instituted a registration proceeding (G.L.R.O. No. 3563) for lands in the barrio of San Francisco del Monte.
Leandra Manlapas opposed the registration, contesting the inclusion of certain parcels in the registered property.
On January 11, 1910, after a hearing, the Court of Land Registration issued a judgment ordering the registration of the property in the name of the Franciscan corporation—with the exception of two parcels claimed by Leandra Manlapas (as shown in Exhibit B).

A decree based on the plan dated August 25, 1910, was issued (though the precise date is not indicated), incorporating Leandra Manlapas’s conformity per a later order (Exhibit I). The decree effectively registered a large tract of land with a partial exclusion corresponding to the parcel claimed by Manlapas.
The title was thereafter issued to the applicant (the Franciscan corporation), which later sold a large part of the land to John W. Gordon. Gordon in turn sold it to San Francisco del Monte, Inc. (the respondent corporation).

On April 7, 1925, San Francisco del Monte, Inc. obtained a writ of possession, directing that Leandra Manlapas and Canuto Tolentino be excluded from the possession of part of the land (specifically confining them to an area of approximately 50,866 square meters).
Petitioners (Manlapas and Tolentino) filed a petition on April 13, 1925, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court in issuing the writ, contending that the writ was illegal and issued without jurisdiction.

On May 8, 1925, the trial court ordered a survey by a Bureau of Lands surveyor, who was assisted by the parties.
On May 19, 1925, petitioners’ counsel protested every entrance, surveying act, or placement of landmarks on the disputed parcel, and moved to suspend the survey pending resolution of the jurisdiction issue.
The survey was carried out and a detailed report was filed on June 26, 1925 (Exhibit H) by Assistant Surveyor QUIRICO C. FERIA, indicating:

The actual boundaries of the land occupied by Mrs. Manlapas contrasted with the boundaries shown in lot B of the plan.
Evidence of continued, long-term occupation and cultivation (e.g., old trees, established rice fields, and bamboo clumps).
An error in the original surveying and mapping process which resulted in an incorrect depiction of lot B.

On September 17, 1925, the lower court, after considering the survey report and the petitioners’ protests, denied the motion to set aside the writ of possession and ordered its immediate execution along with the imposition of costs on the petitioners (as evidenced in Exhibit I and the petitioners’ exceptions in Exhibit J).
It was noted that the petitioners had never obtained total exclusion of the land; rather, only a part was excluded based on the original plan affected by the surveying error.
The permanent and indefeasible nature of the decree (issued approximately 14 years earlier) under Section 38 of Act No. 496 was emphasized, with the understanding that even an error (if any) could not be corrected post-decree issuance.

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession against petitioners.
Whether the respondent corporation, as a successor to the original applicant in the registration proceeding, is entitled to enforce the writ of possession.

The effect of the registration decree, considering the error committed in the survey and the subsequent plan.
Whether the error in the survey and the consequent partial exclusion can be corrected judicially after the issuance of the decree under Section 38 of Act No. 496.

Whether the petitioners’ argument that the respondent’s right to ask for a writ of possession has prescribed is valid.
The applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the execution of judgments to a writ of possession arising from a registration decree.