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
- Whether a certificate against forum shopping is required in a petition or motion for issuance of a writ of possession.
- 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