Limpo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Reggie Christi Limpo and a co-accused were acquitted of nine counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and seven counts of estafa. However, they were held jointly and severally liable to private respondent Veronica Gonzales for P275,000.00 plus interest. This decision became final and executory, leading to a motion for enforcement of civil liability. The sheriff levied upon and sold two parcels of land registered in petitioner's name at an auction sale, where private respondent was the highest bidder. After petitioner failed to redeem the properties, a final deed of sale was executed in favor of private respondent. Procedural History: To consolidate ownership, private respondent demanded the surrender of petitioner's owner's duplicate certificates of title. Upon petitioner's failure to comply, private respondent filed a petition under Section 107 of P.D. No. 1529 to compel the surrender of the titles. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, granted this petition ex parte after petitioner failed to file an opposition, ordering the cancellation of the old titles and the issuance of new ones in private respondent's name. Subsequently, private respondent filed a petition for a writ of possession with RTC Branch 11, alleging entitlement to possession under Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court. The trial court granted this petition ex parte, and a writ of possession was issued. Petitioner's motion to stop the sheriff and set aside the orders was denied, as was her motion for reconsideration. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition. This led to the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that RTC Branch 11 lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession ex parte under Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, contending that such a writ can only be issued ex parte in cases of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage under Act No. 3135, Section 7. She asserts that the writ should have been sought in Branch 12 as an incident of execution and not through an independent ex parte petition. Petitioner also argues that she was deprived of due process as she was not furnished a copy of the petition for the writ of possession nor given notice of hearing. The petition further addresses a motion for intervention by third parties claiming a prior mortgage on the properties.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of possession may be issued ex parte under Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court. Whether RTC, Branch 11, had jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession to enforce a decision rendered by RTC, Branch 12. Whether the intervention of spouses Anselmo and Precilla Bulaong should be allowed at the appellate stage.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The motion for leave to intervene filed by spouses Anselmo and Precilla Bulaong is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of an ex parte writ of possession under Rule 39, Section 35: The Supreme Court held that while strictly speaking, the writ of possession should have been sought in Branch 12 as an incident of execution, and preferably by motion rather than an independent action, the filing as a petition was in substance a motion. The Court found no practical benefit in setting aside the order granting the ex parte writ because private respondent's right to possession was clear, stemming from her ownership as purchaser in the auction sale. Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court clearly entitles the purchaser to possession after the redemption period expires without redemption. The Court emphasized that the issuance of a writ of possession is a consequence of a valid execution sale, and in this case, petitioner did not impugn any procedural infirmity in the proceedings leading to the sale or the issuance of the writ. Her failure to raise any valid ground to oppose the application, despite notice and opportunity, rendered the ex parte issuance permissible and without practical prejudice to her rights. On the jurisdiction of RTC, Branch 11, to issue the writ: The Court affirmed that different branches of a court in the same judicial region are coordinate and equal. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not exclusively in a specific branch or judge. Therefore, RTC, Branch 11, had the authority to issue the alias writ of possession to execute the decision of RTC, Branch 12, as the apportionment of cases among branches does not limit jurisdiction but facilitates administrative coordination. The Court cited Bacalso v. Ramirez to support the principle that proceedings can be continued before another branch of the same court. On the intervention of spouses Bulaong: The Court denied the motion for intervention filed by spouses Anselmo and Precilla Bulaong, citing Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervention may be allowed only if it does not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. The rules generally permit intervention before rendition of judgment by the trial court, and certainly not on appeal. The spouses Bulaong had notice of private respondent's claims as early as January 1993, and could have intervened much earlier, but they waited nearly five years. This delay constituted laches, and allowing intervention at such a late stage would unduly delay the resolution of the appeal and require new trials, prejudicing the original parties.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession may be issued ex parte under Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, even if not sought in the same branch that rendered the judgment, provided that the antecedent proceedings, including the execution sale and the expiration of the redemption period, are valid and undisputed, and the judgment debtor has not raised any valid grounds to oppose the application for possession.