Guzman v. Chico
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a property located at 7-A 32 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City, which was previously registered under the names of the petitioners. This property was sold at a public auction of tax delinquent properties by the City Government of Makati. The respondent emerged as the winning bidder. Following the auction, a Certificate of Sale was issued to the respondent. The petitioners failed to exercise their right of redemption within the statutory one-year period. 2. Procedural History: After the redemption period expired, the respondent filed an application for a new certificate of title with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The RTC ordered the consolidation and transfer of the title to the respondent, leading to the cancellation of the petitioners' existing title and the issuance of a new one in the respondent's name. Subsequently, the respondent filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. The RTC granted this petition and issued the writ. The petitioners then filed a motion to cite the respondent for contempt and to nullify the proceedings, alleging a defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The RTC denied this motion, reasoning that the petition for a writ of possession was not an initiatory pleading and thus did not require such certification. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied. Aggrieved, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's orders, finding no forum shopping and agreeing that a certificate of non-forum shopping was not required for a petition for a writ of possession. The CA also rejected the argument regarding the governing law for the tax auction sale, noting it was raised for the first time on appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' decision under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the CA erred in ruling that a certification of non-forum shopping was unnecessary for the ex parte petition for a writ of possession. They argue that such certification was required and that the proceedings should have been in the nature of an accion reivindicatoria, rendering the summary proceedings void. The petitioners also challenge the CA's affirmation of the writ of possession, asserting that it was improperly issued and that the tax auction sale proceedings were governed by specific provisions of the Local Government Code, not Act No. 3135.
Issue(s)
Whether an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession requires a certificate of non-forum shopping. Whether the cited jurisprudence on accion reivindicatoria applies to a buyer in a tax delinquency sale seeking a writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, upholding the issuance of the writ of possession and dismissing the petitioners' motion to cite respondent in contempt and nullify proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping for an ex parte petition for a writ of possession: The Court affirmed 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. The Court clarified that such a petition is not a complaint or other initiatory pleading as contemplated in Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The non-initiatory nature of such a petition was explained by citing Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, where it was held that 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. Therefore, the requirement for a forum shopping certification is dispelled. The Court also rejected the petitioners' narrow view that only cases covered by foreclosure sales under Act No. 3135 are excused from this requirement, stating that by its very nature, a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title and an incident of ownership, making it absurd to require a certification against forum shopping. On the applicability of cited jurisprudence and the nature of proceedings for a buyer in a tax delinquency sale: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' contention that the cited cases (Factor v. Martel, Jr., Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, and Maglente v. Baltazar-Padilla) mandated the filing of an accion reivindicatoria instead of an ex parte petition for a writ of possession. The Court found that these cases were not applicable because they did not involve actions pertaining to tax delinquency sales or the right of a purchaser in such a sale to seek a writ of possession after the redemption period. The Court reiterated that the issuance of a writ of possession is 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 follows the right of ownership, and it would be illogical to bar a person with ownership from seeking possession. The basis for the grant of the writ in this case was respondent's ownership by virtue of the tax delinquency sale and the expiration of the redemption period. The Court also emphasized that the final and executory judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992, which affirmed respondent's ownership, could only be nullified through a petition for annulment of judgment, which was not filed by the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading and thus does not require a certificate of non-forum shopping. The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function and a summary proceeding that serves as an incident of ownership, particularly in cases of tax delinquency sales where title has been consolidated and the redemption period has expired.