8/11/2019 c. a. IV. Vda. de Barroga vs Albano Page 2 of 25

1/3

G.R. No. L-43445 January 20, 1988

EUFEMIA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BARROGA and SATURNINAVILLANUEVA VDA. DE PACADA, oppositors-appellants,

vs.ANGEL ALBANO, ARSENIO ALBANO, ENCARNACION ALBANO,ROSALIA ALBANO, assisted by her husband, JUANITO ALBANO,ROSITA ALBANO, assisted by her husband, ALFREDO RAMIREZ,

MIGUEL ALBANO, CHARITO ALBANO, and PEDRO ALBANO,petitioners-appellees. RICARDO Y. NAVARRO, in his capacity as Judge of

Sala I, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, respondent.

FACTS:

On July of 1941, a decision was rendered adjudicating a parcel of land in

favour of Delfina Aquino. However, the decree of registration was not

issued except until after 14yrs and only after 24 yrs had passed that an

OCT was issued in favour of the latter.

On august of 1970(after the decree has been issued but before title), the

children and heirs of Ruperta Pascual (oppositors to the cadastral

proceeding) brought a suit againsts the children of Delfina Aquino, the

appellees.

The appellants argued that they had been in possession of the said land

since 1941 an rayed that a new title be made out in their names.

Parenthetically, it shows that the Aquinos title encroached upon a 4sq.m.

portion of adjoining land which belongs to Cesar Castro. Subsequently,

Castro filed a complaint of intervention to recover the said land.

A judgemtn has been rendered awarding the 4sw.m. portion of overlapped

land to Castro and dismissing the complaint filed by the Barrogas and

Padacas. Thereafter, at the instance of defendant Angel Albano, et. Al

(heirs of Delfina Aquino), the court ordered executon of judgemtn.

However, the Barroga and Padacas moved to quash said writ, stating that

there was nothing to execute since the verdict was simply one of

dismissing the complaint. The matter apparently ended. No further

8/11/2019 c. a. IV. Vda. de Barroga vs Albano Page 2 of 25

2/3

development anent this case appears in the record. However, the record

shows that on August of 1975 the Cadastral Court promulgated an order

granting the motion of Angel albano et. Al. for a writ of possesson to the

said land and was issued.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court may still issue order even beyond 15 days from

entry of judgment

RULING:

On November 24, 1925 judgment was promulgated by this Courtin Manlapas, et al. v. Llorente, etc., et al., ruling that:

(1) a party in whose favor a decree of registration is issued by a cadastralcourt in accordance with the Torrens Act (Act No. 496), or his successor-in-interest, has "a perfect right not only to the title of the land, but also to itspossession;"

(2) he has the right, too, under Section 17 of the same Act, to a writ ofpossession as against any "party to the registration proceeding and who isdirectly and personally affected and reached by the decree" (or who hadbeen served with process therein but had not appeared nor

answered); and

(3) his right to obtain a writ of possession is not subject to the provisions ofthe Code of Civil Procedure regarding execution of judgments, since thedecree "is to exist forever." These doctrines have since been reiterated andreaffirmed.

"The fundamental rule," the Court said some forty-three years later, "is thata writ of possession can be issued not only against the original oppositorsin a land registration case and their representatives and successors-in-interest, but also against any person unlawfully and adversely occupyingsaid lot at any time before and up to the issuance of the final decree." Italso pointed out that neither laches nor the statute of limitations applies to adecision in a land registration case, citing Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al. to thefollowing effect:

8/11/2019 c. a. IV. Vda. de Barroga vs Albano Page 2 of 25

3/3

We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant. ... exceptinsofar as it supports his theory that after a decision in a landregistration case has become final, it may not be enforced afterthe lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another proceedingto enforce the judgment. ... (Sec. 6, Rule 39). This provision ofthe Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to specialproceedings, such as a land registration case. This is sobecause a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a

judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and hisfailure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time asprovided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceableagainst the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose isto establish a status, condition or fact; in land registrationproceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is

sought to be established. After the ownership has been provedand confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceedings toenforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverseor losing party had been in possession of the land and thewinning party desires to oust him therefrom.

Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Actsimilar to Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a

judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to place thewinner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. Thedecision in a land registration case, unless the adverse orlosing party is in possession, becomes final without any furtheraction, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting anappeal. ...

... There is nothing in the law that limits the period within whichthe court may order or issue a decree. The reason is ... that the

judgment is merely declaratory in character and does not needto be asserted or enforced against the adverse party.

Furthermore, the issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty bothof the judge and of the Land Registration Commission; failure ofthe court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the reason thatno motion therefor has been filed cannot prejudice the owner,or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered.