Land Bank of the Philippines v. Basilan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Julia R. Perez mortgaged a 21,000-square meter property to Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank). Upon default, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at public auction on September 30, 1997, with Land Bank as the highest bidder. Ownership was consolidated in Land Bank's name on December 4, 2002, with the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-329010. Procedural History: On June 6, 2006, Land Bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on September 18, 2006. A demand to vacate was served on Artemio Perez, Julia's son, and subsequently on Mary Basilan, alleged caretaker. On September 24, 2007, Mary Basilan, Efren Basilan, and Benjamin Camiwet (collectively, Basilan et al.), claiming to be agricultural tenants of Julia, filed a Petition for the Maintenance of Peaceful Possession before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). They asserted they had been cultivating the lands since 1995 and paying rent. A Municipal Agrarian Reform Office certification dated June 21, 2005, stated Mary and Efren were qualified farmer-beneficiaries. On December 3, 2007, the sheriff enforced the writ of possession, turning over the property to Land Bank. Despite this, Basilan et al. continued cultivating the land, leading Land Bank to move for their contempt. The RTC denied the contempt motion on July 14, 2008, holding that agricultural tenancy is a valid third-party claim that defers the implementation of a writ of possession, and closed the case without prejudice to the DARAB outcome. The DARAB Provincial Adjudicator, in a Decision dated December 17, 2010, affirmed Basilan et al. as agricultural lessees and directed Land Bank to respect their possession and enter into a leasehold contract. On July 24, 2013, Land Bank moved for an alias writ of possession. The RTC denied this motion on November 7, 2013, reiterating that tenancy constitutes a third-party claim suspending implementation. The RTC denied Land Bank's motion for reconsideration on June 24, 2014. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Land Bank's petition for certiorari and mandamus on July 12, 2016, affirming the RTC's denial, and subsequently denied Land Bank's motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2017. The Petition: Land Bank filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its prayer for an alias writ of possession. Land Bank contended that Basilan et al. were mere caretakers, not tenants with an adverse title, and thus, no valid third-party claim existed to suspend the writ.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of Land Bank's Motion for Issuance of an Alias Writ of Possession, considering the claim of agricultural tenancy by the respondents; and whether agricultural tenancy over a property constitutes a third-party claim that bars the ex parte issuance of a writ of possession. On the factual issue of whether respondents are agricultural tenants.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals' July 12, 2016 Decision and January 16, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 137010 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether agricultural tenancy constitutes a third-party claim that bars the ex parte issuance of a writ of possession: The Court reiterated the general rule that the purchaser in a public sale of a foreclosed property is entitled to possession, and it is the trial court judge's ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession upon an ex parte petition. However, this rule is subject to an exception under Rule 39, Section 33 of the Rules of Court, which states that possession shall not be turned over when "a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor." The Court clarified that this exception contemplates a situation where a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant, or usufructuary. These parties possess the property in their own right, independent of the landowner's possession. The Court cited China Banking Corp. v. Spouses Lozada and St. Dominic Corp. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court to support this principle, emphasizing that a writ of possession should not be granted without giving such third parties their day in court, especially when questions of title are involved. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for an alias writ of possession. On the factual issue of whether respondents are agricultural tenants: The Court held that the petitioner raised a substantial factual issue, which is generally not the province of a Rule 45 petition. The Court noted that the respondents' agricultural tenancy had been acknowledged by Artemio Perez, the son of the former registered owner, and certified by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, as affirmed by the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the administrative implementation of agrarian laws exclusively belongs to the Department of Agrarian Reform, and findings of administrative agencies with expertise are generally accorded respect and finality. The Court found no proof of Land Bank's allegation that the DARAB case was a mere afterthought to circumvent the writ's enforcement. The courts below had consistently ruled that the respondents were holding the property by adverse title or right, making Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applicable.
Main Doctrine
Agricultural tenancy of a property constitutes a third-party claim that bars the ex parte issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the winning bidder in a public sale of a foreclosed property. Further, the Court will not disturb the factual findings of administrative agencies with expertise on matters over which they have jurisdiction.