LUCERO V. LOOT
FACTS:
Julio Lucero filed was granted a writ of possession of property (based on a final decree in a land registration proceeding). Although the other party (all surnamed Loot) filed a motion to quash the writ, this was granted by CFI Iloilo’s Judge Fernan on September 21, 1959.
The Loots opposed the decision on the ground that there were defects in the reconstitution of the records and that the motion was not under oath. The court dismissed these as trivial arguments. Two motions for reconsideration were also denied. The writ of possession prayed for was issued in favour of Lucero.
The Loots were stubborn as hell. They then went straight to the Supreme Court for an appeal for certiorari. The Loots desperately tried to assert
ISSUE: Whether or not the order granting the writ of possession was in accordance with law
RULING: Yes.
The order granting the writ of possession was based on a decision promulgated on a land registration case in 1938, which became a final decree on October 29, 1941.
After the final decree, the issuance of the writ of possession was only a ministerial duty of the court if no writ has been issued to the registered owner yet. The final decree, in effect, immediately empowered the court to enforce the order/judgment/decree. This automatic process is to avoid further delay and inconvenience to a successful land registration litigant if he were compelled to commence another action to secure possession.
Furthermore, there is no period of prescription as to the issuance of a writ of possession.
The writ may be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a registration case, but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion of the land. Even fraud shall not be a bar to the issuance of the writ of possession, which necessarily implied the delivery of possession of the land.
As to the questions of fact raised by the Loots, the SC can do nothing. These must be raised at the CA of appeals; otherwise, the parties contesting the facts are deemed to have waived the opportunity to question the correctness of the findings.
