HEIRS OF CRISTOBAL MARCOS, Headed by ANTONIO MARCOS, ET AL.

, petitioners,
vs. MARIA DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, GREGORIO PONDAL and the HON. MARIANO V.
BENEDICTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Masbate,
4. The final contention of the petitioners that the decree is void as it is based on a decision that has
been rendered inefficacious by the statute of limitations and/ or by laches, need not give us pause in
view of the following observations made by this Court in Sta. Ana vs. Menla, et al.:9
We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant ... except insofar as it supports his
theory that after a decision in a land registration case has become final, it may not be
enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another proceeding to enforce the
judgment, which may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10
years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is
not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a
party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the
adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided
in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special
proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration
proceedings the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After
the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding
to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in
possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39,
regarding the execution of a judgment in civil action, except the proceedings 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, becomes final without any further
action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal. ...
... There is nothing in the law that limits the period within which the court may order or issue
a decree. The reason is ... that the judgment is merely declaratory in character and does not
need to be asserted or enforced against the adverse party. Furthermore, the issuance of a
decree is a ministerial duty both of the judge and of the Land Registration Commission;
failure of the court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the reason that no motion therefor
has been filed cannot prejudice the owner, or the person in whom the land is ordered to be
registered.
CHAPTER 6: JUDGMENT & DECREE
Decree issued by land registration authority containing technical description of land; issued
after finality of judgment
1.
Decrees dismissing application
2.
Decrees of confirmation and registration

Final after 1 year after decree

Unless there in innocent purchaser for value

Subject only to appeal

Once final, cannot be subject to attack, deemed conclusive against the world
3.
Put end to litigation

4.

Purpose of Torrens system is protected

Amendment after 1 year is allowed creation or extinguishment of new rights; inclusion of new
owners not allowed

Judgment decision of court constituting its opinion after taking into consideration the evidence
submitted
Writ of Possession order to sheriff to deliver the land to the successful party litigant; no
prescription
1.
Against loser
2.
Against anyone unlawfully & adversely occupying
When Writ may not Issue:

Person entered into property after decree- non claimant; had been there for 10 years
Means to Recover Possession:
1.
Forcible entry
2.
Unlawful detainer
3.
Accion publiciana
4.
Accion reindivicatoria
Res Judicata:
1.
Former judgment must be final
2.
Rendered by court having jurisdiction over subject matter & parties
3.
Judgment on merits
4.
Identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action
Remedies Available to Aggrieved Party in Registration Proceedings:
1.
Motion for new trial must be brought within 15 days from notice of judgment
2.
Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have
guarded
3.
Newly discovered evidence which could not be discovered & produced at trial
4.
Evidence insufficient to justify decision, decision is against the law
5.
Appeal must be brought 15 days from notice of judgment
6.
Review of decree of registration available to party deprived of day in court; became nonparty due to misrepresentation; invoke actual fraud; before expiration of 1 year; specific acts
intended to deceive; will no longer prosper if already transferred to innocent purchaser for
value
7.
Plaintiff is owner of land registered in name of defendant
8.
Registration procured through actual fraud
9.
Property has not issued to innocent purchaser for value
10. Action is filed within 1 year after issuance of decree of registration
11. Relief from judgment 60 days 6 months after entry of order; available to party to case,
FAME; after judgment; person deprived of right is party to case
12. Reconveyance action in personam; available so long as property not passed yet to innocent
purchaser for value; bad faith or with notice of defect
13. Recovery for damages
14. Person is wrongfully deprived of his land by registration in name of another actual or
constructive fraud

15. No negligence on his part

16. Barred/ precluded from bringing an action
17. Action for compensation has not prescribed

Nature of Writ of Possession

Posted on December 3, 2010by Erineus

The issuance of a writ of possession is not a judgment on the merits. A writ of

possession is generally understood to be an order whereby the sheriff is commanded to
place a person in possession of a real or personal property, [Moreno, Philippine Law
Dictionary, 1972] such as when a property is extra-judicially foreclosed. [Sec. 7 of Act
3135, as amended] In this regard, the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in
an extra-judicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function. As such, the Court neither
exercises its official discretion nor judgment. [Lamb v. Philipps, 22 Phil 456 (1912)] In
other words, the issuance of the writ of possession is summary in nature, [Tabios,
Problems Involving A Writ of Possession, 218 SCRA 585 (1993)] hence the same cannot
be considered a judgment on the merits which is defined as one rendered after a
determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon
some preliminary or formal technical point. [Santos v. IAC, 145 SCRA 238 (1986)]
Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative powers or to legislative, executive
or ministerial determination. [50 C.J.S. 27 Sec. 603] Accordingly, cases disposed of on
technical grounds do not fall within the doctrine of res judicata. [46 Am Jur 2d Sec.
477] Hence, the issuance of the writ of possession by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City was not a judgment on the merits but simply an incident in the transfer of title.
<.%TITION 'OR )RIT O' %O$$$$IONA.Concept
A writ of possession is <
The issuance of a writ of possession is not a judgment on the merits. A writ of
possession is generally understood to be an order whereby the sheriff is
commanded to place a person in possession of a real or personal property, such as
when a property is extra-judicially foreclosed. In this regard, the issuance of a writ of
possession to a purchaser in an extra- judicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial
function. As such, the Court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment. In
other words, the issuance of the writ of possession is summary in nature, hence the
same cannot be considered a judgment on the merits which is defined as one
rendered after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a
judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal technical point.

B.Jurisdiction
In order to obtain this type of order, the party must file a motion in the jurisdiction
in which the property is located and the court must find that the circumstances

meet their requirements for its issuance. In the event the person on whom the writ
of possession is served wants to fight its issuance, he or she may file an emergency
motion to stay the writ in the court in which the writ was issued. A writ of
possession may be issued under the following instances:
1. land registration proceedings under Sec. 17 of Act 496
2. Judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty
and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened and
3. extra-judicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Sec. 7 of Act 3135 as
amended by Act 4118.

C. Independent proceeding
In the procedure for the issuance of a writ of possession, no complaint is necessary,
the filing of an ex parte motion being enough. Indeed, the term action does not
include
non-judicial
proceedings,
although
they
are before a court, as in cases where the court does not act in a judicial capacity.
There is also another consideration that supports this conclusion since an extrajudicial foreclosure only requires the posting and publication of the notices to effect
the same. (sec.3, Act of 3135 as amended) It has been held that a proceeding to
foreclose a mortgage by advertisement is not an action.