Rodil vs.

Benedicto
January 22, 1980
No. L-28616
Facts
Spouses Tomas and Catalina Rodil are the adjudicatee of a prior cadastral case in 1958.
On February 1959, heirs of one Alejandro Abes filed a petition for review of the registration
decree, alleging that they are the true owners and actual legal possessors of the land, and that the
award to the Spouses Rodil was secured through fraud. The cadastral court denied the petition
for failure to overcome the evidence of the spouses. No appeal was taken by the heirs.
On 1961, the heirs instituted an action for reconveyance of title against the spouses. They
invoked the same grounds as above. The case was dismissed because of res judicata. This
decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Upon the return of the records to the lower court, the spouses filed a petition for issuance
of a writ of possession. The judge, respondent herein, issued an order granting the petition only
against the heirs and denied the same with respect to the other respondents stating that he is
completely at a loss as to who, aside from the heirs, were parties to the original cadastral
proceeding or as to who were at least occupants of the properties in question prior to the issuance
of the decree of registration.
The heirs filed a motion for reconsideration upon the grounds that: (a) the petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession was filed out of time; and (b) there is no allegation in the
petition, and neither had it been proved, that the heirs were defeated in a registration proceeding,
or that they were adversely occupying the land during the proceedings or at any time up to the
issuance of the final decree, or that they were one against those against whom a writ of
possession may be made. Respondent judge granted the heirs motion for reconsideration and
ordered the dissolution of the writ. The spouses filed a motion for reconsideration, but was
denied.
The spouses now filed this petition for mandamus to compel respondent judge to issue a
writ of possession.
Issue
Whether or not respondent judge erred in dissolving the writ on the grounds relied upon
and whether or not the issuance of another is in order.
Held
a)
The right of the applicant (or a subsequent purchaser) to ask for the issuance of a writ of
possession of the land never prescribes (Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Lorente). The provision in
the Rules of Court to the effect that judgement may be enforced within five years by motion, and
after five years but within ten years by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39) refers to civil action and is not
applicable to special proceedings, such as land registration cases.
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 proved and confirmed by judicial
declaration, no further proceeding 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.
b)
A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against everybody, including the
respondent heirs herein.
Besides, the heirs have filed a petition for the review of the decree of registration, thereby
becoming a direct party in the registration proceedings by their voluntary appearance. As to their
alleged unproved adverse possession of the land, the records of the case in their suit for
reconveyance offers numerous instances of their admission of possession of the land before,
during and after the registration proceeding.