Title
Factor vs. Martel, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 161037
Decision Date
Feb 4, 2008
A dispute over land ownership in Las Piñas, involving conflicting titles, a writ of possession, and improper procedural shortcuts, resolved by the Supreme Court favoring long-term possessors.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161037)

Factual Background

Benito J. Lopez was the registered owner of the property covered by TCT No. S-61176, which he sold to Antonio V. Martel, Jr. for P75,000,000. Martel subsequently subdivided the land into five lots. In 1995, Martel discovered that an earlier court decision had granted a group of individuals, the Factors, a claim to the property based on possession since time immemorial. As a result, Lopez and Martel sought to overturn this decision. The case saw multiple rulings, with the Pasig RTC eventually reversing its earlier decision, leading Martel to file an ex parte petition for a writ of possession for the lots in Las Piñas.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas denied Martel's initial petition for the writ of possession, but after a motion for reconsideration, the court reversed its earlier ruling, issuing the writ in favor of Martel. The Factors then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision. The appellate court's decisions on October 16, 2003, and December 9, 2003, denying the petitioners' appeals, became the subject of scrutiny in this case.

Legal Issues Raised

The principal legal issues presented in the petition revolve around:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 02-0030.
  2. Whether a petition for a writ of possession is a proper remedy for recovering possession of the properties at issue.

Arguments from the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that a writ of possession should only be issued pursuant to a decree of registration in an original land registration case. They argued that Martel's petition for the writ was improperly filed outside the original land registration proceedings, which they claimed had concluded in 1905. They maintained that since the Factors’ registration case was still on appeal, no execution could occur, and instead, an action for ejectment should have been pursued.

Respondent's Counterarguments

Martel's position was that the right to a writ of possession does not prescribe, arguing that the writ could be issued against anyone adversely occupying the land involved in the registration proceedings until a final decree was issued. He cited the continuous possession by the Factors and their claim to ownership based on ancestral possession, asserting that they and their predecessors were part of the group against whom the writ could issue.

Court's Findings

The Court determined that a writ of possession is a legal tool used to enforce judgments in land disputes, enabling the sheriff to restore possession to an entitled party. However, it clarified that such a writ can only be issued in conjunction with a decree of registration in the original land registration proceedings. Since the petitioners were not parties in the 1905 original decree and their registration claim was filed much later, they co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.