Title
Manlapas vs. Llorente
Case
G.R. No. 24804
Decision Date
Nov 24, 1925
A 1910 land registration decree favored a Franciscan corporation, excluding parcels claimed by Leandra Manlapas. Decades later, successors sought possession via writ; SC upheld jurisdiction, indefeasibility of decree, and validity of writ despite survey discrepancies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 24804)

Petitioner’s Claims

The petitioners assert that the writ of possession, issued on April 7, 1925, is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the responding judge. They argue that an adequate legal remedy remains available to them, namely challenging the writ itself, and maintain that the respondents do not possess the requisite jurisdiction to issue the writ due to prior errors in land registration.

Respondent’s Demurrer

San Francisco del Monte, Inc. filed a demurrer, asserting that the petitioners have speedy and adequate remedies available and contending that the issuing judge did indeed have jurisdiction to issue the writ of possession in question. Following a hearing on the matter, the case was submitted for judicial consideration.

Undisputed Facts

The dispute traces back to a land registration proceeding initiated by the "Corporacion Franciscana de la Provincia de San Gregorio Magno" in 1906, where Leandra Manlapas opposed the registration concerning her claimed parcels. The Court of Land Registration ultimately ruled in favor of the corporation on January 11, 1910, leading to the subsequent issuance of a decree excluding certain land areas claimed by Manlapas.

Registration Proceedings and Title Transfer

The petitioners were partially excluded from the decree of registration, resulting from an error in survey and land description, as noted in the surveyor’s report from June 26, 1925. Despite Manlapas' continuous possession and cultivation of the land in question, the court deemed her claims insufficient as the decree issued in 1910, to which she had previously consented, remained binding.

Jurisdiction of the Lower Court

The petitioners argue against the jurisdiction of the court to issue the writ of possession on the basis that San Francisco del Monte, Inc. is not the original applicant in the land registration, but rather a successor entity. They allege that even if a right existed for the successor to request such a writ, that right has lapsed due to the statute of limitations.

Legal Framework of Land Registration

The pertinent law governing land registration, Act No. 496, particularly Section 38, emphasizes that every decree of registration is conclusive and binds the land in question. Section 39 further elucidates the rights conveyed to subsequent purchasers, ensuring that such rights—including the right to possession—are effective and enforceable, irrespective of whether the applicant or successor seeks them.

Ruling on Writ of Possession

The court held that the respondent judge acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction when issuing the writ of possession because the registration decr

...continue reading

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