Latoja v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Teresita Cabe and Donato A. Cardona II, along with Jovita Cardona and spouses Rhodo and Myrna Cardona, executed a Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro over a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 41. Following Cardona II's failure to repurchase the property within the stipulated period, Cabe initiated a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership. This petition was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ordered the consolidation of title in Cabe's name. Subsequently, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution, leading to the cancellation of OCT No. 41 and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 114-2011000028 in Cabe's favor. Cabe then sought a Writ of Possession to gain control of the property. 2. Procedural History: The Petition for Consolidation of Ownership, docketed as Civil Case No. 3488, was initially assigned to RTC Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar. The RTC granted the petition, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) after Cardona II's appeals were denied. Following the finality of the judgment, Cabe filed a motion for execution, which was granted, leading to the issuance of a Writ of Execution and the subsequent transfer of title to Cabe. The RTC, through Judge Elvie Lim, then issued an Order granting Cabe's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession. This Order, along with the subsequent Writ of Possession and Notice of Demand to Vacate, is now being assailed by petitioners Spouses Archibal and Charito Latoja. 3. The Petition: Spouses Archibal and Charito Latoja filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Order of Judge Elvie Lim granting the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession. Petitioners argue that Judge Lim committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the Writ of Possession despite a prior Judgment by Compromise he had rendered in a partition case. In that partition case, OCT No. 41 was awarded to Spouses Latoja and Spouses Cardona on a 50/50 pro indiviso ownership basis. Petitioners, who claim to be in possession of a portion of the property, also sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent the implementation of the assailed Order. The Supreme Court granted the TRO and, despite procedural lapses in the petition, resolved the case on its merits, finding that the issuance of a Writ of Possession was improper as it did not fall within the recognized instances for its issuance and that Cabe's remedy for possession lay in separate actions for recovery of real property.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent Judge Lim committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued the Order granting the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession in favor of private respondent Cabe in the consolidation case, considering the procedural issues and the nature of the consolidation of ownership. Whether the Petition for Certiorari should be dismissed on procedural grounds, specifically for violating the hierarchy of courts and failing to file a motion for reconsideration; and if not, what is the proper remedy for possession in a pacto de retro sale.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Order dated September 29, 2011, the Writ of Possession dated October 25, 2011, and the Notice of Demand to Vacate dated October 25, 2011, are SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order dated December 14, 2011, is made PERMANENT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the grave abuse of discretion and procedural issues: While the Petition for Certiorari was filed directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order, the Supreme Court deemed it prudent to resolve the substantial issues raised. This relaxation of procedural rules is justified by the policy to resolve cases on their merits and achieve substantial justice. The Supreme Court found that Judge Lim committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for the issuance of a Writ of Possession. Jurisprudence limits the issuance of a writ of possession to four specific instances, none of which apply to a consolidation of ownership case. The consolidation of title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code is merely for the purpose of registering and consolidating title. A judgment ordering the consolidation of ownership does not automatically include the right to possession. The Writ of Possession issued was a patent nullity. On the procedural issues and the right to possession in a pacto de retro sale: The Court has previously overlooked similar procedural flaws when warranted by the circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice. Strict adherence to procedural rules should not impede the determination of parties' rights and liabilities under the law. Cabe's proper remedy to recover possession, if she was not already in possession, would be through an appropriate action for recovery of real property. The right of a vendee a retro to immediate possession of the property sold vests from the execution of the deed, unless otherwise agreed upon. It was erroneous for Judge Lim to conclude that Cabe was entitled to possession as a matter of right solely by virtue of the final and executory decision on consolidation.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession may only issue in specific instances enumerated by jurisprudence, namely: (1) land registration proceedings; (2) extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage of real property; (3) judicial foreclosure of property, provided that the mortgagor has possession, and no third party has intervened; and (4) execution sales. A writ of possession is not a proper remedy to enforce a judgment ordering the consolidation of ownership under a pacto de retro sale, as possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts, and the judgment on ownership does not necessarily include possession as an incident.