ANSELMA LAMPA, DOMINGO LAMPA, BONIFACIO LAMPA AND CATALINA LAMPA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. RODRIGO RAMIREZ AND DONATO GUILA, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

Lampa versus Ramirez

The Case

This is a case about the most basic guarantee of fair play: no person may be deprived of property without being heard. The Lampa family, claiming to be the registered owners of a parcel of land in San Manuel, Pangasinan, asked the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to issue a writ of possession placing them in possession and excluding Rodrigo Ramirez and Donato Guila. The trial court granted the petition almost immediately, without the oppositors ever having received notice. Ramirez and Guila fought back, insisting they were the lawful owners and possessors of portions of the same lot and that they had been condemned unheard. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court polices the requirements of notice and hearing even in summary proceedings, and how a registered title does not automatically bulldoze a claimant who has never had his day in court.

Procedural History

The Lampas filed their petition for a writ of possession in the cadastral case before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, presided by Judge Rodolfo Baltazar, on June 8, 1954. Three days later, on June 11, 1954, the trial court granted the petition, noting that there was no objection. On June 14, 1954, the clerk of court issued the writ of possession. On June 18, 1954, Ramirez and Guila filed a verified motion for reconsideration, asking that the order and the writ be set aside and that they be allowed to file their opposition. The trial court denied the motion on October 27, 1954. The oppositors appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the deprivation of their day in court and the denial of their motion for reconsideration.

Facts

The Lampas alleged that they were the registered owners of a parcel of land in San Manuel, Pangasinan, designated as lot 67-A and given final lot number 40268, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title number 16253, which they had inherited from their deceased father, Juan Lampa. They claimed that from the issuance of the decree over the lot, no writ of possession had ever been issued, and they asked that one be issued placing them in possession and excluding all other persons, especially Rodrigo Ramirez and Donato Guila.

The petition was set for hearing on June 11, 1954, at eight o'clock in the morning. Copies of the petition and notice were sent to the oppositors by registered special delivery mail at Barrio Santo Tomas, San Nicolas, Pangasinan, even though there was no mail delivery service in the barrios. Rodrigo Ramirez actually received his copies on June 12, 1954, one day after the hearing, and Donato Guila received his on June 15, 1954, four days after the hearing. The trial court nonetheless granted the petition on June 11 and issued the writ on June 14.

In their verified motion for reconsideration, Ramirez and Guila asserted that Ramirez and his wife were the lawful owners and possessors of the undivided southern half of the lot, having bought it in good faith and for value in March 1930 from Bartolome Lampa, who in turn had bought it from Juan Lampa and Dalmacio Lampa and had been adjudged the true and lawful owner in a final decision in a civil case of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. They further asserted that Victoria Suyat, the wife of Donato Guila, had become the lawful owner and possessor of the undivided northern half by inheritance from her deceased father, Vicente Suyat, who had bought it in good faith and for value from Juan Lampa in or about the same year, 1929. They also complained that the Deputy Provincial Sheriff had lost no time in going into the premises and had obtained their signatures under false pretenses and threats. The trial court denied the motion, and the oppositors appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted in violation of the Rules of Court when it heard and granted the petition for a writ of possession on June 11, 1954, before the oppositors had been served with the petition and notice of hearing.
• Whether or not the order granting the writ of possession and the writ issued pursuant thereto should be annulled, and the oppositors allowed to file their opposition and be heard.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, on proof of service, provides:

Proof of service shall be made by the affidavit of the person serving the notice or process, or by the registry receipt for registered mail, or by the certificate of the officer serving the same, or by the affidavit of the person who mailed the notice or process, showing the time and manner of such service.

This provision bears on the case because the trial court acted on the petition without any proof that the oppositors had been served at all.

Section 6 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, on the completion of service by mail, provides:

Service by registered mail shall be deemed complete upon the expiration of five days after the deposit of the notice or process in the post office, unless the addressee appears and files his answer or other pleading within the said period.

This provision bears on the case because, by its own terms, service by registered mail was not yet complete when the trial court heard and granted the petition.

Section 2 of Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, on construction, provides:

These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and unexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

This provision bears on the case because the Court invoked it to reinforce the rule that every party must be heard before being deprived of property.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court clearly violated Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 26. It found it an indisputable fact that the appellants had not been notified of the petition before it was acted upon: Ramirez received his copy and notice on June 12, 1954, one day after the hearing, and Guila received his on June 15, 1954, four days after the hearing. Thus, when the lower court heard the petition on June 11, there was no service upon the appellants and no proof of service. The Court stressed that any party should be heard and not be deprived unjustly of his day in court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the order and the writ must be set aside. From the motion for reconsideration, it appeared that the oppositors and their wives seemed to have valid claims of ownership over their respective shares in lot 67-A, acquired after the original certificate of title was issued in favor of Juan Lampa, the predecessor in interest of the appellees. Consequently, they should have been allowed to file their opposition. By denying the motion for reconsideration, the lower court necessarily deprived them of their right to be heard and to sustain their claim in open court.

Doctrine

First, a court may not hear and grant a petition for a writ of possession before the persons to be excluded have been served with the petition and notice of hearing, and before proof of such service appears on record. Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court govern, and service by registered mail is complete only upon the expiration of five days after deposit in the post office.

Second, the right to be heard is a component of due process; any party should be heard and not be deprived unjustly of his day in court. The Rules are to be liberally construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

Third, a registered title does not foreclose a claimant who asserts ownership acquired after the original certificate of title was issued; such a claimant must be allowed to file an opposition and prove his claim in open court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the order of June 11, 1954 and the writ of possession of June 14, 1954, and ordered the lower court to allow the appellants to file their opposition and, after the parties have joined issues, to conduct the corresponding hearing and enter the proper judgment in accordance with law, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no writ of possession may issue against persons who have not been served with the petition and notice of hearing, for any party should be heard and not be deprived unjustly of his day in court. Examiners use this case to test the requirements of notice and proof of service under Rule 26, and to test whether a Torrens title automatically defeats a claimant who has never had the chance to oppose.