41 SUPREME COURT
 THIRD DIVISION.
4 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Salinas
G.R. No. 152827. February 6, 2007. *
GERARDO MENDOZA, TRINIA and IYLENE all surnamed
MENDOZA, petitioners, vs. SOLEDAD SALINAS,
respondent.
Judgments; Question of Law; A question of law exists when the
doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or
jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not
call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.—A
question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the
correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or
when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being
admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility
of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the
whole, and the probability of the situation. The substantive issue
posed for resolution in the present case pertains to the propriety of
the issuance of the writ of possession by the RTC. This, obviously, is
a question of law; consequently, direct resort to this Court is proper.
Same; An error of judgment committed by a court in exercise
of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as “grave abuse of
discretion.”—There is no question that the writ of possession
granted in this case was made by the RTC acting as a land
registration court, after finality of its Decision dated November 3,
1998 and the corre-
_______________
1|Page
*
415
VOL. 514, 415
FEBRUARY 6,
2007
Mendoza vs. Salinas
sponding OCT No. P-10053 was issued in the name of
respondent. As the soundness of the order granting the writ of
possession is a matter of judgment, the remedy is ordinary appeal by
way of petition for review on certiorari. An error of judgment
committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is
not the same as “grave abuse of discretion.” Errors of judgment are
correctible by appeal, while those of jurisdiction are reviewable
by certiorari.
Writs of Possession; A writ of possession may be issued under
the following instances: 1) land registration proceedings under Sec.
17 of Act No. 496; 2) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in
possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party
to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and 3) extrajudicial
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135
as amended by Act No. 4118.—On the substantive issue of the
propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession, the Court finds
that the RTC committed a reversible error in granting the issuance of
the writ of possession. A writ of possession may be issued under the
following instances: (1) land registration proceedings under Sec. 17
of Act No. 496; (2) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in
possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to
the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (3) extrajudicial foreclosure
of a real estate mortgage under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended
by Act No. 4118.
Same; A writ of possession may be issued not only against the
person who has been defeated in a registration case but also against
anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the land registration proceedings up to the issuance
of the final decree and it is the duty of the registration court to issue
said writ when asked for by the successful claimant.—A writ of
possession may be issued not only against the person who has been
defeated in a registration case but also against anyone unlawfully and
adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land
registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree, and it
is the duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked for
by the successful claimant.
Ownership; Actual possession under claim of ownership raises
a disputable presumption of ownership.—Based on these tenets, the
issuance of a writ of possession, therefore, is clearly a ministerial
duty of the land registration court. Such ministerial duty, however,
ceases to be so with particular regard to petitioners who are actual
416
41 SUPREME
6 COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Salinas
possessors of the property under a claim of ownership. Actual
possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption
of ownership. This conclusion is supported by Article 433 of the
Civil Code, which provides: Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true
owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the
property. Under said provision, one who claims to be the owner of a
property possessed by another must bring the appropriate judicial
action for its physical recovery. The term “judicial process” could
mean no less than an ejectment suit or reivindicatory action, in which
the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly
heard and adjudicated.
Writs of Possession; Ownership; It was ruled that a writ of
possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of registration in
an original land registration proceedings, it cannot issue against
2|Page
possessors under claim of ownership, as actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership,
and the true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of
the property, not summarily through a motion for the issuance of a
writ of possession.—A reading of the Serra Serra case, however,
supports the Court’s conclusion that a writ of possession should not
have been issued in this case. It was ruled by the Court that while a
writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of
registration in an original land registration proceedings, it cannot
issue against possessors under claim of ownership, as actual
possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption
of ownership, and the true owner must resort to judicial process for
the recovery of the property, not summarily through a motion for the
issuance of a writ of possession.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the order of the Regional
Trial Court of Olongapo City, Br. 72.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Mas and Cabrera Law Office for petitioners.
     Estanislao Cesa, Jr. and Marc Raymund S. Cesa for
respondent.
417
VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 417
6, 2007
Mendoza vs. Salinas
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Assailed in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is the
Order dated April 2, 2002 issued by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72, acting as Land
Registration Court, in LRC Case No. N-04-0-97, granting
respondent’s prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession in
her favor.1
 The assailed Order was issued by the RTC after it rendered
a favorable judgment on respondent’s application for
registration in its Decision dated November 3, 1998, and
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10053 was issued in
her name covering a parcel of land described as follows:
“A parcel of land (Plan Psu-224228, LR Case No. N-04-0-97, LRA
Record No. N-68955), situated in the Barrio of Barretto,
Municipality of Olongapo, Province of Zambales, Island of Luzon,
Bounded on the NW., points 1-3 by Road (6.00 m. wide)
(unimproved); on the NE., points 3-4 by Public Land claimed by C.
Panaligan; on the E., SE., and SW., points 4-19 by Makinaya River
(10.00 m. wide); on the SW., points 19-29 by Public Land; and on
the NW., points 29-1 by Road (6.00 m. wide) unimproved.
Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan, being S.84 deg. 47’E.,
2644.65 m. from B.L.B.M. 2, Barrio of Matain, Subic, Zambales,
thence
xxxx
beginning; containing an area of TWENTY THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED FORTY NINE (20,149) SQUARE METERS, more or
less. x x x”
2
Petitioners opposed respondent’s application for the issuance
of a writ of possession claiming that they were not
oppositors/parties to the registration case and they have been in
actual physical possession of the property since 1964. The
RTC, however, rejected their arguments and granted respon-
_______________
 Rollo, p. 57.
1
 Records, pp. 119-120.
2
418
41 SUPREME COURT
8 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Salinas
3|Page
dent’s application for the issuance of a writ of possession per
herein assailed Order.
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioners set forth the lone assignment of error that the
RTC erred in issuing the writ of possession and acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and excess of
jurisdiction.  Petitioners reiterate their argument that they
3
cannot be ousted of their possession of the property, having
been in actual possession of the property since 1964, as
evidenced by petitioner Gerardo C. Mendoza’s Sales
Application made in January 1986 over the following property:
“A parcel of land situated at Burgos St., Bo. Barretto, O.C. Bounded
on the North., by Benjamin Salinas; South., by Gloria Montemayor;
East., by Benjamin Salinas & Conrado Pilapil and West., Burgos St.
situated in Bo. Barretto, Olongapo City, Zambales, and containing an
area of 932 square meters x x x.”
4
and a Declaration of Real Property for the years 1976 and
1985,  among others.
5
Respondent counters that the present petition should be
dismissed, arguing that the petition should have been initially
with the Court of Appeals, based on the principle of hierarchy
of courts, and that the general order of default on October 8,
1998 issued by the RTC binds them and personal notice was
not necessary.
The petition must be granted.
On the procedural issue, it should be pointed out that what
petitioners filed with the Court is a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and not a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The principle
of hierarchy of courts does not find any application in this case.
Under Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, it is pro-
_______________
3
 Rollo, p. 7.
  Id., at p. 19.
4
 Id., at pp. 21, 22.
5
419
VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 419
6, 2007
Mendoza vs. Salinas
vided that in all cases where only questions of law are raised,
the appeal from a decision or order of the RTC shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45, Section 1 of which provides:
“SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.—A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional
Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file
with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.
The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth.”
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy
concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a
certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented,
the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of
fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the
whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the
witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the
whole, and the probability of the situation. 6
The substantive issue posed for resolution in the present
case pertains to the propriety of the issuance of the writ of
possession by the RTC. This, obviously, is a question of law;
consequently, direct resort to this Court is proper.
4|Page
There is no question that the writ of possession granted in
this case was made by the RTC acting as a land registration
court, after finality of its Decision dated November 3, 1998 and
the corresponding OCT No. P-10053 was issued in the name of
respondent. As the soundness of the order granting the writ of
possession is a matter of judgment, the remedy is
_______________
 Bukidnon Doctors’ Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., G.R.
6
No. 161882, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 222, 233.
420
42 SUPREME COURT
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Salinas
ordinary appeal by way of petition for review on certiorari. An
error of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its
legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as “grave abuse of
discretion.” Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, while
those of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari. 7
Petitioners, therefore, filed the proper petition before the
Court.
On the substantive issue of the propriety of the issuance of
the writ of possession, the Court finds that the RTC committed
a reversible error in granting the issuance of the writ of
possession.
A writ of possession may be issued under the following
instances: (1) land registration proceedings under Sec. 17 of
Act No. 496; (2) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in
possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a
party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and (3)
extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Sec. 7
of Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118.
 In land registration cases, principles regarding the issuance
of a writ of possession are well-settled. A judgment confirming
the title of the applicant in a registration case and ordering its
registration in his name necessarily carries with it the delivery
of possession which is an inherent element of the right of
ownership.  This is sanctioned by existing laws in this
8
jurisdiction and by the generally accepted principle upon which
the administration of justice rests. 9
Also, a writ of possession may be issued not only against
the person who has been defeated in a registration case but also
against anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the
_______________
7
 Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No.
153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287, 306.
8
 Heirs of Avila v. Court of Appeals, 229 Phil. 536, 543-544; 145 SCRA
541, 548 (1986).
9
 Vencilao v. Vano, G.R. No. 25660, February 23, 1990, 182 SCRA 491,
505.
421
VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 421
6, 2007
Mendoza vs. Salinas
land or any portion thereof during the land registration
proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree,  and it is the
10
duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked for
by the successful claimant. 11
Based on these tenets, the issuance of a writ of possession,
therefore, is clearly a ministerial duty of the land registration
court. Such ministerial duty, however, ceases to be so with
particular regard to petitioners who are actual possessors of the
property under a claim of ownership. Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of
5|Page
ownership. This conclusion is supported by Article 433 of the
Civil Code, which provides:
“Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable
presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of the property.”
Under said provision, one who claims to be the owner of a
property possessed by another must bring the appropriate
judicial action for its physical recovery. The term “judicial
process” could mean no less than an ejectment suit or
reivindicatory action, in which the ownership claims of the
contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated. 12
It is noted that there already exists a final and executory
decision disregarding respondent’s claim for possession over
the property. In a Decision dated January 21, 2002, rendered by
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Olongapo City,
Branch 3, in Civil Case No. 4643, an action for unlawful
detainer filed by respondent and her spouse against petitioners
and several other occupants of the property, the case against
petitioners was dismissed by the MTCC for lack of
_______________
 Barroga v. Albano, No. L-43445, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 131, 134.
10
 Vencilao v. Vano, supra note 9, at p. 505.
11
 Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 757, 769-
12
770; 374 SCRA 22, 31 (2002).
422
42 SUPREME COURT
2 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Mendoza vs. Salinas
cause of action.  While the MTCC Decision was appealed by
13
the other defendants, respondent and her spouse manifested
that they will not appeal the decision and, instead, will file for a
writ of possession in LRC Case No. N-04-0-97.
Note should also be made that petitioners registered their
opposition to respondent’s application for the issuance of a writ
of possession and apprised the RTC of their actual, peaceful,
physical and uninterrupted possession since 1964,  including
14
therein documents supporting their claim, consisting of
Gerardo C. Mendoza’s Sales Application made on January
1986 and a Declaration of Real Property for the years 1976 and
1985, among others.  The RTC, nevertheless, disregarded their
15
opposition and, instead, relied on the ruling in Serra Serra v.
Court of Appeals [195 SCRA 482],  that a writ of possession
16
may be issued in a land registration proceeding.
A reading of the Serra Serra case, however, supports the
Court’s conclusion that a writ of possession should not have
been issued in this case. It was ruled by the Court that while a
writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of
registration in an original land registration proceedings, it
cannot issue against possessors under claim of ownership, as
actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable
presumption of ownership, and the true owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the property, not summarily
through a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. 17
Thus, it was erroneous for the RTC to have issued the writ
of possession against petitioners. This conclusion, of course, is
without prejudice to any case that respondent may file for the
recovery of the property.
_______________
423
VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 423
6, 2007
Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated
April 2, 2002 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo
City, Branch 72, acting as Land Registration Court, in LRC
Case No. N-04-0-97, is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
Respondent’s application for the issuance of a writ of
possession is DENIED, without prejudice to any case that she
may file for recovery of the property.
SO ORDERED.
     Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson),  Callejo,
Sr. and ChicoNazario, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, order nullified and set aside.
Notes.—The issuance of a writ of possession is a
ministerial function. (Chailease Finance Corporation vs.
Ma,409 SCRA 250 [2003])
For a writ of possession to issue, only two requirements are
required: the sufficiency in form and substance of the
complaint and the required provisional deposit. (City of Iloilo
vs. Legaspi, 444 SCRA 269 [2004])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved.

 Records, pp. 149-150.

13

 Rollo, p. 55.
14

 Id., at pp. 21, 22.

15

 Id., at p. 57.
16

 Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 34080, March 22, 1991, 195

17

SCRA 482, 491-492.

6|Page
7|Page