Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    TOMAS RODIL Et Al. vs. HON. JUDGE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    The petitioners were issued an original certificate of title for a land claim. Later, respondent heirs filed to review the decree but it was denied. Petitioners then filed for a writ of possession but the judge only granted it for some respondents. Petitioners filed for mandamus. The issues were whether writ of possession can be issued against non-parties and if petition was filed out of time. The court granted mandamus, finding the heirs were included in the proceedings and filed for review, and that the right to petition for writ does not prescribe.

    Copyright:

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

    TOMAS RODIL Et Al. vs. HON. JUDGE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    6 views1 page
    The petitioners were issued an original certificate of title for a land claim. Later, respondent heirs filed to review the decree but it was denied. Petitioners then filed for a writ of possession but the judge only granted it for some respondents. Petitioners filed for mandamus. The issues were whether writ of possession can be issued against non-parties and if petition was filed out of time. The court granted mandamus, finding the heirs were included in the proceedings and filed for review, and that the right to petition for writ does not prescribe.

    Original Title

    380. TOMAS RODIL et al. vs. HON. JUDGE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO et al.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were issued an original certificate of title for a land claim. Later, respondent heirs filed to review the decree but it was denied. Petitioners then filed for a writ of possession but the judge only granted it for some respondents. Petitioners filed for mandamus. The issues were whether writ of possession can be issued against non-parties and if petition was filed out of time. The court granted mandamus, finding the heirs were included in the proceedings and filed for review, and that the right to petition for writ does not prescribe.

    Copyright:

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

    TOMAS RODIL Et Al. vs. HON. JUDGE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    The petitioners were issued an original certificate of title for a land claim. Later, respondent heirs filed to review the decree but it was denied. Petitioners then filed for a writ of possession but the judge only granted it for some respondents. Petitioners filed for mandamus. The issues were whether writ of possession can be issued against non-parties and if petition was filed out of time. The court granted mandamus, finding the heirs were included in the proceedings and filed for review, and that the right to petition for writ does not prescribe.

    Copyright:

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

    380. TOMAS RODIL et al. vs. HON. JUDGE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO et al.

    FACTS: In 1958, petitioners were issued an original certificate of title by a cadastral court on the land they claim in the
    Peneranda (Nueva Ecija) Cadastre. Later, the respondent heirs filed a petition for the review of the decree of registration,
    which was denied.

    The petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession asking that they be placed in possession of the lots
    and that the heirs of Alejandro Abes be evicted from the property.

    In 1967, the respondent Judge issued an order granting the petition only with respect to Alejo Abes, Bienvenido Abes,
    Teodora Vda. de Abes, and Cornelio Abes and denied the same with respect to the other respondents because he
    claimed that he did not know who were the parties to the original cadastral proceeding or as to who were at least
    occupants of the properties in question prior to the issuance of the decree of registration.

    The petitioners filed for a petition for mandamus. The respondent-heirs claimed that the issuance of a writ of possession
    was filed out of time, the said petition having been filed more than five years after the issuance of the final decree of
    registration.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether a writ of possession can be issued in a cadastral case notwithstanding the fact that it is against persons
    not parties to the registration proceedings nor occupants of the land during the registration proceedings prior to
    the issuance of the final decree of registration?

    2. Whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed out of time having been filed more than five
    years after the issuance of the final decree of registration.

    HELD: The petition for mandamus was granted.

    1. Yes, because a cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against everybody, including the respondents
    herein, who are deemed included in the general order of default entered in the case. Therefore, the respondent
    heirs of Alejandro Abes cannot be said to be strangers to the registration proceedings. Besides, it appears that
    the said respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes filed a petition for the review of the decree of registration, thereby
    becoming a direct party in the registration proceedings by their voluntary appearance.

    2. No. The right of the applicant or a subsequent purchaser to ask for the issuance of a writ of possession of the land
    never prescribes as held in Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Lorente. In a later case, the Court also ruled that the
    provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within five years by motion, and after
    five years but within ten years by an action (Section 6, Rule 39) refers to civil actions and is not applicable to
    special proceedings, such as land registration cases.

    Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39. regarding the execution
    of a judgment in a civil action, except to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The
    decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession adverse or losing party,
    on. becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.

    You might also like