SALVADOR SERRA SERRA, HEIRS OF GREGORIO SERRA SERRA, represented by CARMELO IMAZ, as Special Administrator of the Estate of GREGORIO SERRA SERRA, MARGARITA SERRA SERRA, FRANCISCA TERESA SERRA SERRA, AND FRANCISCO JOSE SERRA SERRA, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JUDGE CARLOS ABIERA, THE…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 34080
- Promulgated: 1991-03-22
- Ponente: Medialdea, J.
Doctrine
A writ of possession issued after the dismissal of a motion to cancel reconstituted certificates of title may be improper; its enforcement can constitute grave abuse of discretion and deprive the court of jurisdiction.
A motion to cancel a final order for reconstitution of title may be characterized as a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 when it seeks nullification of a final reconstitution order.
A trial court exceeds its jurisdiction when it issues a preliminary injunction affecting possession or real property rights where possession was not put in issue and the possession matter is already pending before the Court of Appeals.
Facts
These are consolidated petitions under Rule 65 seeking writs, filed in G.R. No. L-34080.
The Court considered whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it lifted a writ of preliminary injunction, noting that the CA case CA-G.R. No. SP-00139 on possession remained unresolved.
Judge Abiera issued a writ of possession after petitioners' motion to cancel reconstituted certificates of title was dismissed; the Court found that issuance of that writ under the circumstances was not proper.
The trial court had earlier enjoined petitioners from harvesting and selling sugarcane, though possession was not put in issue; the Supreme Court later ordered return of value and a mandatory injunction.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it previously issued.
Whether the issuance of the writ of possession by the trial court (Judge Abiera) was proper under the circumstances after dismissal of the motion to cancel reconstituted certificates of title.
Whether the petitioners' motion to cancel the reconstituted certificates of title is in the nature of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38.
Ruling
The Court held the trial court's issuance of the writ of possession was not proper and the appellate court's lifting of the preliminary injunction, resulting in enforcement of that writ and dispossession, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court granted the petitions, set aside the CA order lifting the preliminary injunction, declared the writ of possession in Cadastral Case No. 17 null and void, and remanded the records for hearing of the motion for cancellation of the reconstituted titles.
Private respondents were ordered to return possession of the properties to petitioners; the Court's temporary restraining order of 15 February 1972 enjoining interference with petitioners' possession was continued.
Keywords
G.R. No. L-34080, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, Rule 65, writ of preliminary injunction, writ of possession, grave abuse of discretion, reconstitution of original certificates of title, transfer certificates of title, adverse claim, motion for cancellation of certificates of title, Cadastral Case No. 17, GLRO Records No. 163, declaration of heirship, Civil Case No. 10040, ex-parte motion, motion for reconsideration, motion, 34080, possession