Vda. De Barroga v.
Albano passed, or on November 17, 1979, that an original certificate of title
Cadastral Proceeding | Jan. 20, 1988 | Narvasa, J.
Nature of Case:
Digest Maker: Anne S
SUMMARY:
A decision was rendered that adjudicated a parcel of land in favor of
Aquino. However, the decree of registration did not issue except until
after the lapse of fourteen (14) years; and it was only after twenty-four
(24) years had passed that an original certificate of title was issued in
Aquino's name. A writ of possession was issued in favor of Albano,
Aquino’s successor in interest, for possession of the lots. Baroga and
Padaca sought to frustrate acquisition of possession by Albano. They filed
a "Motion to Nullify Order to Lift Writ of Execution Issued and to Revoke
Writ of Possession Issued". Their argument was that as possessors of the
lot in question, they could not be ejected therefrom by a mere motion for
writ of possession. The motion was thereafter denied by the Court. Court
ruled in favor of the Albanos, Aquino’s predecessor in interest. Court held
The writ of possession could properly issue despite the not inconsiderable
period of time that had elapsed from the date of the registration decree,
since the right to the same does not prescribe.
DOCTRINE:
The writ of possession could properly issue despite the not inconsiderable
period of time that had elapsed from the date of the registration decree,
since the right to the same does not prescribe.
FACTS:
 In Cadastral Proceeding No. 44 (LRC Rec. No. 1203) of the then
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, a decision was rendered on
July 31, 1941 adjudicating a parcel of land known as Lot No. 9821 in
favor of Delfina Aquino. One of the oppositors was Ruperta Pascual,
who was declared in default. However, for reasons not disclosed by
the record, but as to which no sinister or prejudicial character is
imputed by the appellants, the decree of registration did not issue
except until after the lapse of fourteen (14) years or so, or on
October 14, 1955; and it was only after twenty-four (24) years had
(No. C-2185) was issued in Delfina Aquino's name.
 On August 11, 1970, after the decree of registration had been
handed down but before title issued in Delfina Aquino's favor, the
children and heirs of Ruperta Pascual appellants Eufemia Barroga
and Saturnina Padaca brought suit in the same Court of First
Instance against the children and heirs of Delfina Aquino appellees
Angel Albano, et al. Said appellants alleged that they, and their
mother, Ruperta Pascual, had been in possession of Lot 9821 since
1941 and were the real owners thereof; and they prayed that
Delfina Aquino's title be voided and cancelled, that the defendants
be commanded to reconvey the land to them, and that a new title
be made out in their names.
 It appears, parenthetically, that Delfina Aquino's title encroached
upon a 4 -square-meter portion of an adjoining lot, No. 9822,
belonging to a Cesar Castro. So, Castro filed, with leave of court, a
complaint in intervention on February 22, 1987 for the recovery
thereof. After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered dismissing
the Barroga's and Padaca's complaint, and declaring intervenor
Castro owner of the 4-square-meter portion overlapped by Delfina
Aquino's title.
 A writ of possession was issued in favor of Albano, Aquino’s
successor in interest, for possession of the lots. Baroga and Padaca
sought to frustrate acquisition of possession by Albano. They filed a
"Motion to Nullify Order to Lift Writ of Execution Issued and to
Revoke Writ of Possession Issued". Their argument was that as
possessors of the lot in question, they could not be ejected
therefrom by a mere motion for writ of possession.The motion was
thereafter denied by the Court.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
W/N THE WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS PROPER – YES
Ratio:
 The fundamental rule is that a writ of possession can be issued not
only against the original oppositors in a land registration case and
their representatives and successors-in-interest, but also against
any person unlawfully and adversely occupying said lot at any time
 before and up to the issuance of the final decree." It also pointed been filed cannot prejudice the owner, or the person in whom the
out that neither laches nor the statute of limitations applies to a land is ordered to be registered."
decision in a land registration case, citing Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al. to
the following effect:
 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 *** (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 prov;ed and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further
proceedings 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 a
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