LUCERO V.

LOOT its orders, judgments or decrees in the same way

FACTS:
The order of the CFI Iloilo the former Judge
Wenceslao Fernan now on appeal before this
court.
Questioned order of the Court of First Instance
speaks to this effect: Regarding the writ of
possession, once the final decree has been issued
the issuance of a writ of possession is only a
matter of course if nothing in the past has been
issued in favour of the registered owner. There is
no period of prescription as to the issuance of a
writ of possession, and inasmuch as the final
decree has already been entered, it follows that a
writ of possession should be issued in favour of the
registered owner.
CFI Iloilo granted a writ of possession in favour of
movant, appellee, Julio Lucero.The appellants, all
surnamed Loot, opposed the grant.
An urgent motion to quash the writ of possession
was filed by the oppositors on September 25,
1959. It was followed by motion for
reconsideration, which was denied. Another two
motions for reconsideration were filed and denied
by the Court.
ISSUE:
that the judiciary does is so that the winning party
could be placed in possession of the property
covered by such decree. Thereby, there would be
an avoidance of the inconvenience and the further
delay to which a successful litigant would be
subjected if he were compelled "to commence
other actions in other courts for the purpose of
securing the fruits of his victory."
A writ of possession 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 thereof during
the land registration proceedings ... The issuance
of the decree of registration is part of the
registration proceedings. In fact, it is supposed to
end the said proceedings. Consequently, any
person unlawfully and adversely occupying said lot
at any time up to the issuance of the final decree,
may be subject to judicial ejectment by means of a
writ of possession and it is the duty of the
registration court to issue said writ when asked for
by the successful claimant. The fact that the
petitioners have instituted, more than one year
after the decree of registration had been issued, an
ordinary action with the Court of First Instance
attacking the validity of the decree on the ground of
fraud, is not a bar to the issuance of the writ of
possession applied for by the registered owners."

Whether the order granting the writ of possession

was in accordance with law.

RULING:

Yes. The lower court was correct in saying that the

issuance of a writ of possession is only a matter of
course if nothing in the past has been issued in
favor of the registered owner."

It is equally true, as likewise mentioned therein,

that there is "no period of prescription as to the
issuance of a writ of possession, ..." In Pasay
Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, it has been made clear
that the purpose of the statutory provision
empowering the then Court of Land Registration,
now the ordinary courts of first instance, to enforce

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. V. CA
FACTS:
On October 15, 1969, Contract to Sell No. 36 was
executed by the Spouses Canuto and Ma.
Aranzuzu Oreta, and the Solid Homes, Inc
(SOLID), involving a parcel of land identified as
Block No. 8, Lot No. 1, Phase I of the Capitol Park
Homes Subdivision located in Quezon City.
Upon signing of the contract, Oreta made payment
amounting to P7,869.40 with the agreeement that
the balance shall be payable in monthly
instalments.
November 4, 1976- SOLID executed several real
estate contracts in favour of State Investment
Homes Inc. (STATE), one of which is the subject lot
covered by TCT No. 209642.
SOLID failed to comply with its mortgage
obligations, so STATE extra-judicially foreclosed
the mortgaged properties including the subject lot.
Spouses filed a complaint before the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB) against SOLID
and STATE for failure on the part of SOLID to
execute the necessary absolute deed of sale, and
to deliver title to said property in violation of the
contract to sell despite full payment. STATE
averred that unless SOLID pays the redemption
price, it has a right to hold on and not release the
foreclosed properties.
Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs
(OAALA) ruled in favour of the spouses.
Petitioner (excluding SOLID) filed with the
Supreme Court petitioner for review of decision of
the Office of the President.
The judgment of the Office of the President was
sustained. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether Spouses Oretas unregistered rights
over the subject property are superior to the
registered mortgage rights of petitioner State
Investment House, Inc. (STATE).
(2) Whether persons dealing with property covered
by Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go
beyond what appears on the face of the title.
RULING:
(1) Yes.
STATEs registered mortgage right over the
property is inferior to that of respondents-spouses
unregistered right. The unrecorded sale between
respondents-spouses and SOLID is preferred for
the reason that if the original owner (SOLID, in this
case) had parted with his ownership of the thing
sold then he no longer had ownership and free
disposal of that thing so as to be able to mortgage
it again. Registration of the mortgage is of no
moment since it is understood to be without
prejudice to the better right of third parties
(2) No.
The general rule is the purchaser is not required to
explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its
face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or
inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his
right thereto. The exception however is where the
purchaser or mortgagee, has knowledge of a
defect or lack of title in his vendor, or that he was
aware of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably
prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of
the property in litigation.
In this case, petitioner was well aware that it was
dealing with SOLID, a business entity engaged in
the business of selling subdivision lots. In fact, the
OAALA found that at the time the lot was
mortgaged, State Investment House, Inc. had been
aware of the lots location and that said lot formed
part of Capital Park/Homes Subdivision.
We take judicial notice of the uniform practice of
financing institutions to investigate, examine and
assess the real property offered as security for any
loan application especially where, as in this case, the subject property is a subdivision lot located
at Quezon City, M.M.