G.R. No. L-72721 - Gawaran vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-72721)

Factual Background

In 1959, private respondents filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over four lots, including Lot No. 2, covering property located in Digman, Bacoor, Cavite. Petitioners, as oppositors, opposed only with respect to Lot No. 2, where they had their residential house and a “camarin.” No opposition was filed regarding the other three lots.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court awarded Lot No. 2 to the oppositors (petitioners). Private respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, confirming ownership of Lot No. 2 in the names of private respondents. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 56312, but their petition was dismissed, and entry of judgment was made on May 24, 1982.

Thereafter, on January 13, 1984, an order for the issuance of a decree in favor of private respondents was issued. In implementation, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2123 was issued in the names of private respondents, including Lot No. 2. Despite the issuance of the title, petitioners continued possession over Lot No. 2.

Because of petitioners’ continued possession, private respondents moved for enforcement. On March 19, 1985, the Regional Trial Court issued the writ of possession, directing oppositors to dismantle and remove their building and/or structure from Lot No. 2 under pain of demolition, and to vacate the premises in favor of private respondents within thirty (30) days.

Appellate Proceedings for Certiorari and Prohibition

Petitioners challenged the March 19, 1985 writ of possession in a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the then Intermediate Appellate Court, docketed as AC-G.R. Sp. No. 06092. Petitioners sought the annulment of the writ and the special order of demolition.

The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the petition on July 17, 1985. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the appellate court denied the motion on October 22, 1985. Petitioners then filed the present appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in: first, holding that in a land registration case, adjudication of ownership carries with it the right of possession; and second, in allowing demolition of their improvements supposedly built in good faith without reimbursement or indemnification, in violation of petitioners’ substantial rights.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners maintained that, because they were possessors and their improvements were built in good faith, they should be entitled to the protection accorded to builders in good faith under Article 2148 of the Civil Code. They argued that the enforcement measures culminating in demolition should not proceed absent reimbursement or indemnification.

Respondents, and the courts below, relied on the nature of land registration proceedings and the effect of a judgment confirming title, issuing the decree, and generating the corresponding original certificate of title. They contended that possession necessarily follows ownership as adjudicated in the registration case, and that the writ of possession was a necessary consequence of the issuance of title in favor of the successful party.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court held that the petition was without merit and that the Intermediate Appellate Court committed no reversible error. It affirmed the appellate court’s ruling sustaining the issuance of the writ of possession as inherent in the right of ownership after confirmation and issuance of title.

The Court also rejected petitioners’ reliance on good faith and Article 2148. It ruled that petitioners’ claim of good faith could not be sustained in view of the findings made in the registration proceedings—particularly the appellate court’s rejection of petitioners’ alleged claim of ownership and the lack of factual basis for testimony presented to justify a “concept of owner” possession. The Court cited Baltazar, et al. vs. Caridad, et al. on the requirement that good faith must rest on a colorable right beyond mere stubborn belief after judicial adjudication.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of AC-G.R. Sp. No. 06092 and upheld the enforceability of the writ of possession and its directive for removal under pain of demolition.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court anchored its first conclusion on the doctrine that in a registration case, judgment confirming title inherently carries delivery of possession. It expressly adopted the reasoning in Avila vs. Court of Appeals: in registration cases, a judgment confirming title and ordering registration necessarily entails delivery of possession as an inherent element of ownership. The Court further emphasized that a writ of possession may issue not only against the person who was defeated in the registration case, but also against anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land during the registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree. It treated issuance of the writ as the registration court’s duty when requested by the successful party.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that petitioners could not validly invoke the law on builders in good faith to resist the writ and demolition. It reasoned that petitioners’ asserted good faith was unavailing because the Court of Appeals, during the registration proceedings (referenced as CA-G.R. No. 54221-R), had rejected petitioners’ claimed ownership over the land. The Court noted the appellate findings that petitioners had presented no documentary proof that, prior to the start of the court case in 1959, petitioners or their predecessors had established claims of ownership over Lot No. 2. It also noted that although Pedro Guinto testified that Cesario Gawaran, his wife, and children possessed Lot No. 2 in the concept of owner, the Court of Appeals found no factual basis for that conclusion.

The Supreme Court then applied the doctrinal standard from Baltazar, et al. vs. Caridad, et al., holding that good faith must rest on a colorable right in the builder, and it must go beyond a mere stu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-72721)

The petitioners, Emiliano Gawaran, Magdalena Gawaran, Delfin Gawaran, Fernando Gawaran, Augusto Gawaran and Virginia Gawaran, filed the case in their behalf and in substitution of the deceased oppositor, Feliciana Gervasio Vda. de Gawaran, as petitioners.
The respondents were the Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court (Third Special Cases Division), Hon. Alejandro C. Silapan, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XVI, Cavite City, and the private respondents (Dominga F. Santos, Crispina Santos, Generoso Santos, Teodoro Santos, Rufino Santos, Magdalena Santos, Marcelo Santos and Presentacion Santos) as respondents.
The petition before the Court assailed the Intermediate Appellate Court’s July 17, 1985 dismissal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition and the October 22, 1985 resolution denying reconsideration.
The petitioners sought the annulment of the writ of possession with a special order of demolition issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cavite City dated March 19, 1985.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were the oppositors in a land registration proceeding concerning Lot 2, PSU-173975 in Digman, Bacoor, Cavite.
The private respondents were the applicants for registration and confirmation of title over the property.
The trial court initially awarded Lot No. 2 to the oppositors after trial of the registration case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and confirmed ownership of Lot No. 2 in the private respondents.
Petitioners further appealed to the Court in G.R. No. 56312, but the petition was dismissed, and entry of judgment was made on May 24, 1982.
After judgment became final, a decree issuance followed: on January 13, 1984, an order for issuance of the decree was issued in favor of the private respondents, and Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2123 was issued in their names including Lot No. 2.
Despite the issuance of title, petitioners continued possession over Lot No. 2, prompting the private respondents to move in the Regional Trial Court for issuance of a writ of possession.
On March 19, 1985, the Regional Trial Court issued the questioned writ of possession containing a complimentary directive for the oppositors to dismantle and remove their building or structure from Lot No. 2 and to vacate within thirty (30) days, under pain of demolition.
Petitioners challenged the RTC order through a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Intermediate Appellate Court, but it was dismissed on July 17, 1985, and their motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 1985.

Key Factual Allegations

The registration application filed by the private respondents in 1959 covered four lots, with no opposition as to three lots, and opposition only as to Lot No. 2.
Petitioners’ residential house and a “camarin” stood on Lot No. 2, forming the primary basis for their opposition and later challenge.
Petitioners’ claim of possession was tied to their allegation that they and their predecessors possessed the land in the “concept of owner.”
After the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and confirmed ownership in private respondents, petitioners continued their actual possession over Lot No. 2 despite the issuance of title.
Petitioners attributed their continued possession to their alleged status and protection as builders in good faith, and they resisted dismantling and demolition consequences attached to the writ of possession.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Petitioners contended that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in holding that in a land registration case, the declaration and adjudication of ownership include the right of possession over the property.
Petitioners further argued that the Intermediate Appellate Co