Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

LUCERO V.

LOOT its orders, judgments or decrees in the same way


that the judiciary does is so that the winning party
FACTS: could be placed in possession of the property
covered by such decree. Thereby, there would be
The order of the CFI Iloilo the former Judge
an avoidance of the inconvenience and the further
Wenceslao Fernan now on appeal before this
delay to which a successful litigant would be
court.
subjected if he were compelled "to commence
other actions in other courts for the purpose of
Questioned order of the Court of First Instance
securing the fruits of his victory."
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
A writ of possession may be issued not only
issued in favour of the registered owner. There is
against the person who has been defeated in a
no period of prescription as to the issuance of a
registration case but also against anyone adversely
writ of possession, and inasmuch as the final
occupying the land or any portion thereof during
decree has already been entered, it follows that a
the land registration proceedings ... The issuance
writ of possession should be issued in favour of the
of the decree of registration is part of the
registered owner.
registration proceedings. In fact, it is supposed to
CFI Iloilo granted a writ of possession in favour of end the said proceedings. Consequently, any
movant, appellee, Julio Lucero.The appellants, all person unlawfully and adversely occupying said lot
surnamed Loot, opposed the grant. at any time up to the issuance of the final decree,
may be subject to judicial ejectment by means of a
An urgent motion to quash the writ of possession writ of possession and it is the duty of the
was filed by the oppositors on September 25, registration court to issue said writ when asked for
1959. It was followed by motion for by the successful claimant. The fact that the
reconsideration, which was denied. Another two petitioners have instituted, more than one year
motions for reconsideration were filed and denied after the decree of registration had been issued, an
by the Court. 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."
ISSUE:

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
(1) Whether Spouses Oretas unregistered rights
over the subject property are superior to the
registered mortgage rights of petitioner State
Investment House, Inc. (STATE).
STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. V. CA

FACTS:
(2) Whether persons dealing with property covered
by Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go
On October 15, 1969, Contract to Sell No. 36 was
beyond what appears on the face of the title.
executed by the Spouses Canuto and Ma.
Aranzuzu Oreta, and the Solid Homes, Inc
(SOLID), involving a parcel of land identified as
RULING:
Block No. 8, Lot No. 1, Phase I of the Capitol Park
Homes Subdivision located in Quezon City. (1) Yes.

Upon signing of the contract, Oreta made payment STATEs registered mortgage right over the
amounting to P7,869.40 with the agreeement that property is inferior to that of respondents-spouses
the balance shall be payable in monthly unregistered right. The unrecorded sale between
instalments. respondents-spouses and SOLID is preferred for
the reason that if the original owner (SOLID, in this
November 4, 1976- SOLID executed several real
case) had parted with his ownership of the thing
estate contracts in favour of State Investment
sold then he no longer had ownership and free
Homes Inc. (STATE), one of which is the subject lot
disposal of that thing so as to be able to mortgage
covered by TCT No. 209642.
it again. Registration of the mortgage is of no
moment since it is understood to be without
SOLID failed to comply with its mortgage
prejudice to the better right of third parties
obligations, so STATE extra-judicially foreclosed
the mortgaged properties including the subject lot.

Spouses filed a complaint before the Housing and


(2) No.
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB) against SOLID
and STATE for failure on the part of SOLID to The general rule is the purchaser is not required to
execute the necessary absolute deed of sale, and explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its
to deliver title to said property in violation of the face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or
contract to sell despite full payment. STATE inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his
averred that unless SOLID pays the redemption right thereto. The exception however is where the
price, it has a right to hold on and not release the purchaser or mortgagee, has knowledge of a
foreclosed properties. defect or lack of title in his vendor, or that he was
aware of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably
Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs
prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of
(OAALA) ruled in favour of the spouses.
the property in litigation.
Petitioner (excluding SOLID) filed with the
In this case, petitioner was well aware that it was
Supreme Court petitioner for review of decision of
dealing with SOLID, a business entity engaged in
the Office of the President.
the business of selling subdivision lots. In fact, the
OAALA found that at the time the lot was
The judgment of the Office of the President was
mortgaged, State Investment House, Inc. had been
sustained. Hence, this petition.
aware of the lots location and that said lot formed
part of Capital Park/Homes Subdivision.

ISSUE: 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.