Javate v. Tiotuico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norma V. Javate was the owner of a parcel of land which she mortgaged to Guagua Rural Bank to secure a loan. Upon her failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, became the highest bidder at the auction sale, and subsequently consolidated its ownership after the redemption period expired. The respondent spouses then purchased the property from the bank, and a new title was issued in their names. Procedural History: Respondent spouses filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which the RTC granted. Petitioner appealed this order. While the appeal was pending, the RTC granted the respondents' motion for a writ of possession pending appeal, which the petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration failed to overturn. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging this writ, but the CA denied it. Petitioner's subsequent petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 185266) was also denied. Meanwhile, the RTC granted the respondents' motion to implement the earlier writ of possession, which the petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration could not prevent. Petitioner again filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in allowing the implementation of the writ. The CA dismissed this petition, finding it a scheme to delay and affirming the respondents' right to possession as owners. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari of the CA's decision and resolution, raising the sole issue of whether respondents, as subsequent purchasers through a private transaction and not through land registration or foreclosure proceedings, are entitled as a matter of right to a writ of possession. Petitioner argues that only the bank, as the foreclosure sale buyer, was entitled to such a writ, and respondents should have pursued ejectment or accion reivindicatoria. The petition contends that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's order to implement the writ of possession, which had been previously affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 185266.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents, as subsequent purchasers of a property acquired through a private transaction (not directly from foreclosure proceedings), are entitled, as a matter of right, to the issuance of a writ of possession. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's order to implement the writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated December 18, 2008, and its Resolution dated April 13, 2009, in CA-G.R. SP No. 104833, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement of subsequent purchasers to a writ of possession: The Court held that petitioner was correct in stating that respondents must resort to judicial process, but incorrect in limiting the appropriate remedies to ejectment or accion reivindicatoria. The Court affirmed that respondents were correct in seeking a writ of possession. Citing Okabe v. Saturnino, the Court explained that Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, concerning execution sales, can be applied suppletorily to extrajudicially foreclosed properties bought by a purchaser and subsequently sold to third-party purchasers after the redemption period. While a writ of possession may issue ex-parte to a mortgagee-purchaser or a third party during the redemption period, a hearing must be conducted for a third-party purchaser after the redemption period to determine if the property is still in the mortgagor's possession. If it is, a writ of possession may issue; otherwise, an ordinary action of ejectment is the remedy. The Court found that although the petition was filed ex-parte, a hearing was conducted when petitioner was given the opportunity to file pleadings. Moreover, it was undisputed that petitioner remained in possession prior to the writ's issuance, making the resort to a petition for a writ of possession proper for respondents as subsequent purchasers. The Court also cited Roxas v. Buan to support the logic that a successor-in-interest of a mortgagee-purchaser may be issued a writ of possession against a mortgagor remaining in possession. The Court reiterated that immediately requiring a subsequent purchaser to file a separate ejectment case would only prolong proceedings and unduly deny them possession of the property they have already bought, as possession is a natural incident of ownership. On the CA's affirmation of the trial court's order to implement the writ: The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner's certiorari petition was a mere ploy to delay the implementation of the writ, which was issued almost ten years prior. Petitioner had already been given her day in court when her earlier suit questioning the writ's legality reached the Supreme Court and was decided against her (G.R. No. 185266). Since that judgment upholding the trial court's issuance of the writ had become final and executory, there was no recourse but to implement it, as otherwise, it would be a useless paper judgment. Therefore, the CA did not err in upholding the trial court's order to implement the writ of possession in favor of the respondents.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent purchaser of a property foreclosed extrajudicially, after the expiration of the redemption period, may file a petition for a writ of possession to acquire possession thereof, provided that a hearing is conducted to determine if the property is still in the possession of the mortgagor or a third party holding adversely to the mortgagor. The issuance of such writ is a ministerial function of the court.