Bascara v. Javier
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of a parcel of land. Evangeline Pangilinan initiated a petition for a writ of possession after a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale, asserting her ownership based on a consolidated title (TCT No. 147777). This followed a mortgage executed by Rosalina P. Pardo in favor of Pangilinan, which Pardo allegedly failed to pay. The property was then sold at public auction to Pangilinan, and the redemption period expired without redemption. 2. Procedural History: Pangilinan filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 111, Pasay City. The RTC granted the petition and issued a writ of possession. Petitioner Reynaldo P. Bascara, claiming to be the rightful owner by virtue of a donation mortis causa from the late Rosalina P. Pardo, filed a motion to recall the writ. The RTC denied this motion and directed the sheriff to implement the writ. Bascara's motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's orders. Bascara subsequently filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Reynaldo P. Bascara seeks to reverse the decisions of the CA and the RTC, which denied his motion to recall a writ of possession. Bascara argues that he is the true owner of the property by virtue of a donation mortis causa from Rosalina P. Pardo, and that Pangilinan's title is void due to alleged fraud, including the forgery of Pardo's signature and the use of an impostor in loan documents. He contends that his possession is adverse to the judgment obligor, thus precluding the ministerial issuance of the writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner's motion to recall the writ of possession. Whether petitioner, as a third-party claimant asserting ownership via donation mortis causa, is holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor/mortgagor, thereby making the issuance of the writ of possession non-ministerial. Whether a donation mortis causa, without prior probate, can validly transfer ownership and a right to possession adverse to a subsequent foreclosure sale.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the orders of the Regional Trial Court which denied the motion to recall the writ of possession and directed its implementation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to recall the writ of possession: The Court reiterated that in extrajudicial foreclosures, the issuance of a writ of possession is generally a ministerial duty of the court under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. This duty applies even after the redemption period has expired without redemption, and no bond is required in such cases. The purchaser becomes the absolute owner and is entitled to possession. The Court found that the petitioner's claim of ownership through a donation mortis causa did not constitute a right adverse to the judgment debtor/mortgagor, Pardo, but rather a claim as a successor-in-interest. Therefore, the issuance of the writ remained a ministerial duty. On the nature of petitioner's possession as adverse: The Court clarified that the exception to the ministerial duty of issuing a writ of possession arises when a third party is in actual possession of the property claiming a right adverse to the judgment obligor. This exception contemplates situations where the third party possesses the property in their own right, such as a co-owner, agricultural tenant, or usufructuary. Petitioner, claiming ownership through a donation mortis causa from Pardo, merely stepped into Pardo's shoes and did not possess an independent right adverse to her. Consequently, petitioner was not considered a "third party who is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor." On the validity of the donation mortis causa and its effect on possession: The Court emphasized that a donation mortis causa partakes of the nature of a testamentary provision and must comply with the requisites for the solemnities of wills and testaments under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code to be valid. Unless such a deed is probated and allowed by the proper court, no right to the subject property is transmitted to the petitioner. Therefore, the alleged donation, without probate, did not confer a valid title or a right of possession that could be asserted adversely against the foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent issuance of the writ of possession.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosures is a ministerial duty of the court, which ceases to be ministerial only when a third party is in actual possession of the property claiming a right adverse to the judgment debtor/mortgagor. A transferee or successor-in-interest who merely steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor/mortgagor, such as one claiming ownership via donation mortis causa, cannot be considered a third party holding the property adversely.