YTURRALDE VS CA

Facts:

Spouse Francisco Yturralde and Margarita delos Reyes owned a parcel of

agricultural land in Zamboanga Del Sur.
In 1944, Yturralde died intestate, survived by his wife and petitioners in the
instant case, their 9 children.
Sometime in 1950, delos Reyes contracted a second marriage with her brotherin-law and uncle of petitioners, Damaso Yturralde.
Damaso and Margarita executed a deed of sale with right to repurchase in favor
of respondent, Isabelo Rebollos, covering the abovemetioned property for Php
1,715.00. The vendors failed to exercise the right to repurchase the property
within the 3 year period agreed upon.
In 1961, Margarita died.
Rebollos filed a petition for consolidation of ownership with the CFI of
Zamboanga del Sur. The respondents in the case were Damaso and the 9
children of Francisco and Margarita. However, summons was received only by
Damaso, and 6/9 children (Ernesto, Fortunata, Montano, Guadalupe, Luis,
Rosalia). 3/9 (Josefina, Zosima, Ramon) were no longer residing at their known
addresses.The 3 children were then declared in default.
CFI rendered a decision in favor of Rebollos; ordered the consolidation of the
property as well as the cancellation of the old TCT and the issuance of a new
one.
Rebollos filed a motion to order petitioner Montano to surrender and deliver to
the Register of Deeds the owner's duplicate of the original TCT, which motion
was granted by the judge. Montano, however, failed to comply. The court then
ordered the arrest of Montano, however, this was subsequently lifted upon his
motion.
Upon motion filed by Rebollos, the respondent judge ordered the execution of the
judgment. Petitioners filed an MR of the order granting execution and for the
quashing of the writ of execution, which was denied by the respondent judge.
Upon petition filed by Rebollos, the respondent judge ordered the demolition of
all buildings not belonging to Rebollos found on the premises in question.
Petitioners then filed an MR of the order of demolition, which was denied by the
judge. However, upon motion of the petitioners, the sheriff was directed to defer
the implementation of the writ of execution and the order of demolition until afer
June 23, 1969.
Petitioners then instituted the CA proceedings, which was given due course. A
writ of preliminary injunction was issued, restraining the respondents from
enforcing the above decision and the orders complained of.
Rebollos, in his answer, averred that he already sold the property in question to a
certain Pilar de Reyes under a deed of absolute sale. A TCT had been issued in
favor of the vendee.
The CA held that prohibition will not lie since the act sought to be prevented had
already been performed since the respondent judge ordered the sheriff to hold
the enforcement in abeyance. Moreover, the property had already been sold and
its TCT granted to de Reyes. A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of
ownership. The same cannot be collaterally attacked, but can only be challenged

in a direct proceeding.
Hence, the instant petition instituted by the Yturralde children.

Issues:

WoN prohibition is a proper remedy- YES.

While a TCT was already issued in favor of de Reyes, the assailed orders were
never executed, and the property in question still remain with the petitioners.
Moreover, the general prayer for such other reliefs includes a prayer for
nullification of the decision as well as the questioned orders.