BISHOP OF LEGASPI, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL CALLEJA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SORSOGON, CONCEPCION H. LUNA AND IGNACIO A. LUNA, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner herein, the Bishop of Legaspi, seeks a writ of mandamus to
enjoin respondent, Hon. Manuel Calleja, as Judge of First Instance of
Sorsogon, to issue a writ of possession in favor of said petitioner and
against the other respondents, Concepcion H. Luna and Ignacio A. Luna.

It appears that in 1947, Rev. Father Martin Alcazar, now deceased,
applied for the registration of several parcels of land, situated in
the municipalities of Pilar and Castilla, province of Sorsogon. The
decision of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon granting said
application was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1952. The
corresponding decree and Certificate of Title No. O-32, in the name of
Father Alcazar, were issued on July 14, 1953. On January 19, 1954,
petitioner filed, with the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon, a deed of
sale executed by Father Alcazar in favor of Msgr. Pedro P. Santos, as
Bishop of Nueva Caceres, of the properties covered by said Original
Certificate of Title No. O-32, and a sworn statement of Msgr. Pedro P.
Santos, as well as a deed of cession executed by the latter, in his
capacity then as Archbishop of Nueva Caceres, in favor of petitioner
herein. Upon registration of these documents, said Original Certificate
of Title No. O-32 was cancelled and, in its place, Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 656, in the name of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva
Caceres, was issued. Then the register of deeds cancelled the latter,
and issued, in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 657, in
the name of the petitioner.

Subsequently, or on April 20,
1954, respondents Concepcion H. Luna and her husband, Ignacio A. Luna,
together with seventeen (17) other persons, instituted Special Civil
Action No. 879 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon against Msgr.
Pedro P. Santos and petitioner herein. The petitioners in said Case No.
879 alleged that sixteen (16) of them, including Concepcion H. Luna,
were nephews and nieces, as well as heirs of the deceased Father
Alcazar; that the other petitioners therein, including Ignacio A. Luna,
were husbands of some of these heirs; that Father Alcazar died
intestate in Guinobatan, Albay, on September 29, 1953, leaving
immovable properties in the municipalities of Pilar and Castilla,
Sorsogon, which were in the possession and under the administration of
said Ignacio A. Luna, the administrator appointed by Father Alcazar;
that, upon application filed by the latter in 1947, the Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon had ordered the registration of said properties in
his name, in a decision rendered in 1951, which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals in 1952; that the corresponding decree and Original
Certificate of Title No. O-32 were issued on July 14, 1953, in the name
of Father Alcazar; that on January 19, 1954, the documents adverted to
above were registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Sorsogon; that, as a consequence, the latter cancelled Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-32 and issued, in its stead, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 656, in the name of the Roman Catholic Bishop
of Nueva Caceres, and then cancelled this transfer certificate of title
and issued, in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 657, in
the name of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Legaspi; that the cancellation
of Original Certificate of Title No. Q-32 and the issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title Nos. 656 and 657 were illegal because the alleged
right of Msgr. Santos over the property covered by Original Certificate
of Title No. O-32 had ceased to exist upon the issuance thereof; and
that, accordingly, the conveyance of Msgr. Santos to the Bishop of
Legaspi was null and void. The prayer in said petition was as follows:

“POR LAS CONSIDERACI0NES ARRIBA EXPUESTAS, al Hon. Juzgado respectuosamente pide: (a)
Dicte sentencia, ordenando a Mons. Flaviano B. Ariola, a devolver al
Registrador de Titulos de la provincia de Sorsogon, el Certificado de
Transferencia de Titulo No. 657; (b) Ordenando al Registrador de
Titulos de la provincia de Sorsogon, la cancelacion del Certificado de
Transferencia de Titulo No. 657 y (c) Ordenando al Registrador
de Titulos para que expida un nuevo Certificado de Transferencia de
Titulo en sustitucion del Certificado Original de Titulo No. 0-32, a
nombre del finado Rev. P. Martin Alcazar. Pide tambien cualquier otro
remedio que en derecho procede.”

On August
31, 1955, the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon rendered a decision
dismissing the petition in said Special Civil Action No. 879, with
costs against the petitioners therein. Said decision was on appeal
affirmed by this Court in G. R. No. L-9914, (102 Phil., 588) on
December 19,1957. Soon thereafter, or on March 11,1958, petitioner
herein filed, in the corresponding land registration case, a “motion
for the issuance of a writ of possession” against the petitioners in
the aforementioned Special Civil Action No. 879. This motion was
granted by an order, dated April 1, 1958, of the Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon, then presided over by the respondent Judge.
However, said order was, on motion for reconsideration filed by Mr. and
Mrs. Luna, set aside by another order of respondent Judge, dated June
23, 1958, upon the theory that, more than five (5) years having elapsed
since the rendition of final judgment in the land registration case in
1952, a writ of possession could no longer be issued in 1958, pursuant
to the rule laid down in Sorongan vs. Makalintal (80 Phil., 259; 45 Off. Gaz. 3819).

Upon refusal of respondent Judge to reconsider his last order,
petitioner instituted the present action for mandamus, against
respondent Judge and Mr. and Mrs. Luna. Petitioner maintains that
respondent Judge is in duty bound, and should be directed, to issue the
aforementioned writ of possession because the same may be availed of in
land registration cases at any time, without limitation, as held in
Manlapas vs. Llorente (48 Phil., 298), which, petitioner
claims, should prevail over the view adopted in the Sorongan case, and
because, even if the right to a writ of possession in land registration
cases were not enforceable after five (5) years, as in other cases,
said period had been suspended from the commencement of Special Civil
Action 879 on April 20, 1954, to the promulgation of the decision of
the Supreme Court in that case on December 19, 1957, so that,
altogether, less than five (5) years have elapsed since the rendition
of final judgment in the land registration case in 1952.

It
is, however, unnecessary to pass upon these questions of law raised by
petitioner herein. As assignee of the rights of the Archbishop of Nueva
Caceres, who had merely the rights conveyed to him by Father Alcazar,
the Bishop of Legaspi has no more rights over the properties covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 656 than those which Father Alcazar
had as original owner thereof. Consequently, the implications of the
question whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession against
respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Luna, may become clearer if we ascertain
whether Father Alcazar could have secured such writ against these
spouses. In this connection, it should be noted that Mr. Luna held said
properties as administrator thereof, appointed by no other than Father
Alcazar, and, hence, in his name and behalf. Mr. Luna’s possession was,
in contemplation of law, a possession by Father Alcazar. As a
consequence, the latter could not have availed himself of a writ of
possession against Mr. Luna, for the former would then be using the
writ against his alter ego, and, hence, against himself.

Indeed, a writ of possession in land registration cases may be issued only against the person defeated in the registration case and against “anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof, during the proceeding up to the issuance of the final decree” (Demorar vs. Ibañez and Porras, 97 Phil., 72; 51 Off. Gaz., 2872; Pasay Estate Co. vs.
Del Rosario, 11 Phil., 391). Obviously, it cannot be used, either
against the party in whose favor the land has been decreed to be
registered, or against his representatives or successors in interest
(Antonio vs. Rocamora, 106 Phil., 538; 60 Off. Gaz., [3] 331; Sapangan vs. Decillo, 63 Phil., 412; Manuel vs. Rosario, 56 Phil., 365; Yuson vs.
Diaz, 42 Phil., 22). Inasmuch as Mr. Luna held the properties in
question as agent of Father Alcazar, and, upon the latter’s death,
either as extra-legal administrator of his estate—something like a case
of negotiorum gestio—or in trust and for the benefit of the nieces and
nephews of the deceased, as his alleged heirs, it is apparent that the
present possession of Mr. Luna is, in effect, an extension of that of
Father Alcazar.

The issue before us would, legally be the
same if Father Alcazar, either personally or thru his attorney-in-fact,
had failed or refused to deliver the properties in question to Msgr.
Santos or his agent. It would then be apparent that Msgr. Santos could
not avail of a writ of possession in order to take hold of the
property. He would have to, either sue for specific performance, or
bring an action for ejectment.

Wherefore, without prejudice
to petitioner’s right to seek relief in the appropriate proceedings,
the writ prayed for is hereby denied and the petition herein dismissed,
with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.