Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The assailed Order was issued by the RTC after it rendered a favorable
judgment on respondent's application for registration in its Decision
dated November 3, 1998, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-
10053 was issued in her name covering a parcel of land described as
follows:
xxxx
Petitioners set forth the lone assignment of error that the RTC erred in
issuing the writ of possession and acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack and excess of jurisdiction.3 Petitioners reiterate their
argument that they cannot be ousted of their possession of the property,
having been in actual possession of the property since 1964, as
evidenced by petitioner Gerardo C. Mendoza's Sales Application made
in January 1986 over the following property:
and a Declaration of Real Property for the years 1976 and 1985,5 among
others.
The substantive issue posed for resolution in the present case pertains
to the propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession by the RTC.
This, obviously, is a question of law; consequently, direct resort to this
Court is proper.
There is no question that the writ of possession granted in this case was
made by the RTC acting as a land registration court, after finality of its
Decision dated November 3, 1998 and the corresponding OCT No. P-
10053 was issued in the name of respondent. As the soundness of the
order granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment, the remedy
is ordinary appeal by way of petition for review on certiorari. An error of
judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate
jurisdiction is not the same as "grave abuse of discretion." Errors of
judgment are correctible by appeal, while those of jurisdiction are
reviewable by certiorari.7
Also, a writ of possession may be issued not only against the person
who has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone
unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof
during the land registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final
decree,10 and it is the duty of the registration court to issue said writ
when asked for by the successful claimant.11
Thus, it was erroneous for the RTC to have issued the writ of possession
against petitioners. This conclusion, of course, is without prejudice to
any case that respondent may file for the recovery of the property.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Rollo, p. 57.
2
Records, pp. 119-120.
3
Rollo, p. 7.
4
Id. at 19.
5
Id. at 21, 22.
6
Bukidnon Doctors' Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co., G.R. No. 161882, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 222, 233.
7
Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R.
No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287, 306.
8
Heirs of Avila v. Court of Appeals, 229 Phil. 536, 543-544
(1986).
9
Vencilao v. Vano, G.R. No. 25660, February 23, 1990, 182
SCRA 491, 505.
10
Barroga v. Albano, No. L-43445, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA
131, 134.
11
Vencilao v. Vano, supra note 9, at 505.
12
Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 757,
769-770 (2002).
13
Records, pp. 149-150.
14
Rollo, p. 55.
15
Id. at 21, 22.
16
Id. at 57.
17
Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 34080, March 22,
1991, 195 SCRA 482, 491-492.