Vda de Barroga vs.

Albano, 157 SCRA 131

FACTS: CFI of Ilocos Norte adjudicated a parcel of land in favor of Delfina Aqui
no. One of the oppositors was Ruperta Pascual, who was declared in default. For
unrecorded reasons, the decree of registration did not issue except until after
the lapse of 14 years or so (October 14, 1955). It was only after 24 years (Nove
mber 17, 1979) that OCT was issued in Delfina Aquino's name.
1970 - after the decree of registration had been handed down but before title is
sued in Delfina Aquino's favor, the children and heirs of Ruperta Pascual appell
ants Eufemia Barroga and Saturnina Padaca-brought suit against the children and
heirs of Delfina Aquino appellees Angel Albano, et al.
Barroga et.al.: had been in possession of Lot 9821 since 1941 and were the real
owners thereof; they prayed that Delfina Aquino's title be voided and cancelled
and that a new title be made out in their names.
Delfina Aquino's title encroached upon a 4-square-meter portion of an adjoining
Lot 9822, belonging to Cesar Castro. Castro filed complaint in intervention for
the recovery thereof.
CFI: DISMISSED Barroga's and Padaca's complaint, and declaring intervenor Castro
owner of the 4-square-meter portion overlapped by Delfina Aquino's title.
The familiar doctrine of res adjudicata operated to blot out any hope of success
of Barroga's and Padaca's suit for recovery of Lot No. 9821. Their action was c
learly barred by the prior judgment in the cadastral proceeding affirming Delfin
a Aquino's ownership over the property, and in which proceeding the former's pre
decessor-in-interest, Ruperta Pascual, had taken part as oppositor but had been
declared in default. The judgment of the cadastral court was one "against a spec
ific thing" and therefore "conclusive upon the title to the thing.
On August 8, 1975, the Cadastral Court promulgated an order granting the motion
of Angel Albano, et al. for a writ of possession as regards Lot No. 9821. Writ o
f possession dated August 28, 1975 was issued. Again Barroga and Padaca sought t
o frustrate acquisition of possession by Angel Albano, et al.
They filed a "Motion to Nullify Order to Lift Writ of Execution Issued and to Re
voke Writ of Possession Issued.

Their argument: as possessors of the lot in question, they could not be ejected
therefrom by a mere motion for writ of possession.
ISSUE: Whether or not they can be ejected.
HELD: Yes. The writ of possession could properly issue despite the not inconside
rable period of time that had elapsed from the date of the registration decree,
since the right to the same does not prescribe pursuant to the rulings in Heirs
of Cristobal Marcos v. de Banuvar and Lucero v. Loot, It also declared that the
segregation of the 4-square meter portion from Lot 9821 and its restoration as i
ntegral part of Lot 9822, had no effect whatever on the Albanos' right to the wr
it of possession, which was the appropriate process for the enforcement of the j
udgment in the cadastral case.
Conformably with the established axioms set out in the opening paragraphs of thi
s opinion, the appellees, Angel Albano, et al. must be declared to be entitled t
o a writ of possession over Lot No. 9821 in enforcement of the decree of registr
ation and vindication of the title issued in favor of their predecessor-in-inter
est, Delfina Q. Aquino; the writ may correctly be enforced against the appellant
s, Barroga and Padaca, as successors-in-interest of Ruperta Pascual, who was a p
arty in the registration proceedings which resulted in the declaration of Delfin
a Q. Aquino as the owner of the land subject thereof; and the appellees are enti
tled to said writ of possession, despite the lapse of many, many years, their ri
ght thereto being imprescriptible at least as against the persons who were parti
es to the cadastral case or their successors-in-interest. The appellants, it mus
t be said, have succeeded in prolonging the controversy long enough. They should
no longer be allowed to continue doing so.