Thursday, January 26, 2017

De Guzman, et al. vs. Chico Case Digest

Angelina De Guzman, et al. vs. Gloria A. Chico
G.R. No. 195445. December 7, 2016

Facts
The subject of this case is a property situated at 7-A 32 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City, previously registered under the name of petitioners, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 164900.

On May 24, 2006, the property was sold at a public auction of tax delinquent properties conducted by the City Government of Makati City. Respondent was the winning bidder at the public auction, and the City Government of Makati executed a Certificate of Sale in her favor on even date. Petitioners failed to redeem the property within the one-year period. Thus, on July 12, 2007, respondent filed with the RTC of Makati City an application for new certificate of title (LRC Case No. M-4992). On December 28, 2007, after hearing, the RTC ordered that the title over the property be consolidated and transferred in the name of respondent. The Register of Deeds of Makati consequently cancelled TCT No. 164900 and issued a new order, TCT No. T-224923, in favor of respondent. Afterwards, in the same court, respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of possession. The motion was, however, denied by the court for failure to set the motion for hearing.

On January 14, 2009, respondent filed (for the same property), an Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession (LRC Case No. M-5188) with the RTC of Makati City. This ex parte petition was raffled to Branch 59 (court a quo ).

On April 1, 2009, the court a quo issued an Order granting respondent's ex parte petition and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession in her favor. The writ was subsequently issued on August 7, 2009. On August 28, 2009, petitioners filed an urgent motion to cite respondent in contempt, and to nullify the proceedings on the ground that LRC Case No. M-5188 contained a defective/false verification/certification of non-forum shopping.

On September 11, 2009, respondent filed her comment/opposition. She alleged that petitioner's objection to the certification against forum shopping was deemed waived for failure to timely object thereto. She also claimed that forum shopping does not exist.

RTC Ruling
Denied petitioners motion. It ruled that the ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by respondent in LRC Case No. M-5188, although denominated as a petition, is not an initiatory pleading, and, thus, does not require a certificate of non-forum shopping.

CA Ruling
The CA ruled that there is no forum shopping. Prior to the filing of the ex parte petition in LRC Case No. M-5188, RTC Branch 62 has already denied respondent's motion for issuance of a writ of possession in LRC Case No. M-4992. The CA added that there can be no forum shopping because the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function and is summary in nature, thus, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits but simply an incident in the transfer of title.

Issues
  1. Whether a certificate against forum shopping is required in a petition or motion for issuance of a writ of possession.
  2. Whether the issuance of a writ of position is warranted.
SC Rulings

No certificate against forum shopping
is required in a petition or motion for
issuance of a writ of possession.

We affirm the ruling of the CA that a certificate against forum shopping is not a requirement in an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. An ex parte petition for the issuance of writ of possession is not a complaint or other initiatory pleading as contemplated in Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but rather its purpose. A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession does not aim to initiate new litigation, but rather issues as an incident or consequence of the original registration or cadastral proceedings. As such, the requirement for a forum shopping certification is dispelled.

We also cannot subscribe to petitioners' narrow view that only cases covered by foreclosure sales under Act No. 3135 are excused from the requirement of a certificate against forum shopping.

Based on jurisprudence, a writ of possession may be issued in the following instances: (a) land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496, otherwise known as The Land Registration Act; (b) 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; ( c) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (d) in execution sales.

We note that there is no law or jurisprudence which provides that the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession depends on the nature of the proceeding in which it is filed. Thus, we find no logical reason for petitioners' contention that only cases covered by Act No. 3135 are exempt from the requirement of a certificate against forum shopping. As explained in the previous paragraphs, by its very nature, a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title. It is an incident of ownership, and not a separate judgment. It would thus be absurd to require that a petition for the issuance of this writ to be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping.


The issuance of a writ of possession is
warranted.

Contrary therefore, to petitioners' contentions, the CA did not err in upholding the writ of possession in this case. In St. Raphael Montessori School, Inc. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, an action involving the application of Act No. 3135, this Court recognized that the writ of possession was warranted not merely on the basis of the law, but ultimately on the right to possess as an incident of ownership. The right to possess a property merely follows the right of ownership, and it would be illogical to hold that a person having ownership of a parcel of land is barred from seeking possession. Precisely, the basis for the grant of the writ of possession in this case is respondent's ownership of the property by virtue of a tax delinquency sale in her favor, and by virtue of her absolute right of ownership arising from the expiration of the period within which to redeem the property.

More, respondent's ownership over the property is affirmed by the final and executory judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992. To be clear, a writ of possession is defined as a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land, commanding the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the person entitled under the judgment.


WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114103 is hereby AFFIRMED.

No comments:

Post a Comment