Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Lucero v. Loot, G.R. No. L-16995, October 26, 1968

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Hulipas
    1) Julio Lucero was granted a writ of possession by the Court of First Instance in a land registration case in his favor. The Loots, who were affected by the writ, filed motions to quash the writ which were dismissed. 2) The issue is whether the granting of the writ of possession was in accordance with law. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance correctly granted the writ of possession in favor of Julio Lucero based on provisions of the Land Registration Act and precedents stating that a writ of possession can be issued against anyone occupying the land during registration proceedings or after the final decree is issued.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lucero v. Loot, G.R. No. L-16995, October 26, 1968

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Hulipas
    102 views1 page
    1) Julio Lucero was granted a writ of possession by the Court of First Instance in a land registration case in his favor. The Loots, who were affected by the writ, filed motions to quash the writ which were dismissed. 2) The issue is whether the granting of the writ of possession was in accordance with law. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance correctly granted the writ of possession in favor of Julio Lucero based on provisions of the Land Registration Act and precedents stating that a writ of possession can be issued against anyone occupying the land during registration proceedings or after the final decree is issued.

    Original Title

    14. Lucero v. Loot, G.R. No. L-16995, October 26, 1968

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Julio Lucero was granted a writ of possession by the Court of First Instance in a land registration case in his favor. The Loots, who were affected by the writ, filed motions to quash the writ which were dismissed. 2) The issue is whether the granting of the writ of possession was in accordance with law. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance correctly granted the writ of possession in favor of Julio Lucero based on provisions of the Land Registration Act and precedents stating that a writ of possession can be issued against anyone occupying the land during registration proceedings or after the final decree is issued.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    102 views1 page

    Lucero v. Loot, G.R. No. L-16995, October 26, 1968

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Hulipas
    1) Julio Lucero was granted a writ of possession by the Court of First Instance in a land registration case in his favor. The Loots, who were affected by the writ, filed motions to quash the writ which were dismissed. 2) The issue is whether the granting of the writ of possession was in accordance with law. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance correctly granted the writ of possession in favor of Julio Lucero based on provisions of the Land Registration Act and precedents stating that a writ of possession can be issued against anyone occupying the land during registration proceedings or after the final decree is issued.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LUCERO v.

    LOOT
    G.R. NO. L-16995 OCTOBER 26, 1968
    FACTS:
    The Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered a decision in a land registration case favor
    of the Julio Lucero. With regard to the writ of possession, the CFI ruled that “once the final
    decree has been issued the issuance of a writ of possession is only a matter of course if nothing
    in the past has been issued in favor of the registered owner.” In addition, it is also ruled that
    there is no period of prescription as to the issuance of a writ of possession, and inasmuch as the
    final decree has already been entered, it follows that a writ of possession should be issued in
    favor of the registered owner.
    Accordingly, the writ of possession was granted in favor of Julio Lucero. However, herein
    oppositors (all surnamed Loot), who are affected by the writ, filed an urgent motion to quash
    the writ of possession interposing that that there were defects in the reconstitution of the
    records and that the motion was not under oath. The the motions to quash as trivial arguments
    were dismissed, and the two motions for reconsideration were also denied. Thus, the writ of
    possession prayed for was issued in favor of Lucero. The oppositors (Loots) went straight to the
    Supreme Court and filed for an appeal for certiorari.
    The court dismissed these as trivial arguments. Two motions for reconsideration were
    also denied. The writ of possession prayed for was issued in favor of Lucero. The Loots went
    directly to the Supreme Court for an appeal.
    ISSUE:
    WHETHER OR NOT THE GRANTING OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS IN
    ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
    RULING:
    The Court of First Instance is correct in granting the writ of possession in favor with
    Julio Lucero.
    No other view would be compatible with the pertinent provision of the Land
    Registration Act, as uniformly interpreted by this Court. As was noted in the order of September
    21, 1959, there was a final decree in a land registration case which arose from a decision
    promulgated in 1938, the final decree being issued on October 29, 1941.
    It was not incorrect for the lower court to state, therefore, that "the issuance of a writ
    of possession is only a matter of course if nothing in the past has been issued in favor of the
    registered owner." It is equally true, as likewise mentioned therein, that there is "no period of
    prescription as to the issuance of a writ of possession."
    Based on restatement of the principle, the court held in the case of Demorar v. Ibanez,
    that a writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a
    registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof
    during the land registration proceedings.
    The issuance of the decree of registration is part of the registration proceedings. In fact,
    it is supposed to end the said proceedings. Consequently, any person unlawfully and adversely
    occupying said lot at any time up to the issuance of the final decree, may be subject to judicial
    ejectment by means of a writ of possession and it is the duty of the registration court to issue
    said writ when asked for by the successful claimant.
    The fact that the petitioners have instituted, more than one year after the decree of
    registration had been issued, an ordinary action with the Court of First Instance attacking the
    validity of the decree on the ground of fraud, is not a bar to the issuance of the writ of
    possession applied for by the registered owners.
    It is clear, that on the facts as found, the validity of the challenged order cannot be
    impugned. It is equally clear that this being a direct appeal to us, no questions of fact may be
    raised. "Nothing is better settled than that where the correctness of the findings of fact of the
    lower court is assailed, the Court of Appeals is the proper forum. If resort be bad directly to us,
    then appellant must be deemed to have waived the opportunity otherwise his to inquire into
    such findings and to limit himself to disputing the correctness of the law applied.”
    There was also no denial in the brief for movant-appellee that such a case was then
    pending at the time the respective briefs were filed. What is decided here cannot affect
    whatever final decision might possibly have been rendered by this time in the reconveyance
    action. Nonetheless, the mere fact that such a suit was then pending did not oust the lower
    court of its jurisdiction to issue the writ of possession.

    You might also like