G.R. No. 152827 - Mendoza vs. Salinas

Petitioners: Gerardo Mendoza, Trinia Mendoza, and Iylene Mendoza.
Respondent: Soledad Salinas.
The dispute centers on a parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Barretto, Municipality of Olongapo, Province of Zambales, described in detail (covering approximately 20,149 square meters, bounded by specified roads, public lands, and the Makinaya River).
An Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-10053) was issued in respondent’s name following the RTC’s favorable decision in her registration case dated November 3, 1998.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72, acting as the Land Registration Court, rendered a decision confirming respondent’s title and ordering its registration.
Subsequent to the registration order, the RTC issued a writ of possession in respondent’s favor through the Order dated April 2, 2002, in LRC Case No. N-04-0-97.
The issuance of the writ was based on established practice in land registration cases, whereby a judgment confirming title carries with it the inherent right to possession.

Petitioners contended that they had been in actual, peaceful, and uninterrupted physical possession of the disputed property since 1964.
They supported their claim through documentary evidence including:

Gerardo Mendoza’s Sales Application dated January 1986 for a parcel of land in Bo. Barretto.
A Declaration of Real Property covering the years 1976 and 1985, among others.

Petitioners argued that they were not a party to the registration case and that their long-term possession under a claim of ownership created a disputable presumption of ownership.
They set forth the sole assignment of error that the RTC’s issuance of the writ of possession amounted to grave abuse of discretion, constituting lack and excess of jurisdiction.

The petition should be dismissed on the ground that, according to the hierarchy of courts, the matter should have initially been taken to the Court of Appeals.
The general order of default issued by the RTC on October 8, 1998, was binding, and personal notice was not requisite.

It was clarified that the petition before the Supreme Court was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, designed to address questions of law rather than issues of fact.
Respondent argued that the RTC’s action was proper given the established rules and that any errors in judgment are remedyable through ordinary appeal.

Whether the RTC erred in issuing a writ of possession against petitioners who have been in actual possession of the property under a claim of ownership.
Whether such issuance, in view of the disputable presumption of ownership arising from long-term possession, was appropriate under the principles governing land registration proceedings.

Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the correct remedy, considering that only questions of law were involved.
Whether the principle of hierarchy of courts precludes the direct filing of the petition with the Supreme Court in this context.

Whether the RTC’s act constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, which would imply errors of jurisdiction, or merely an error in judgment—a matter typically correctible on ordinary appeal.
The implication of the RTC’s reliance on precedent (e.g., Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals) and whether it properly applies in a context where petitioners were actual possessors.