NORMA V. JAVATE vs. SPOUSES RENATO J. TIOTUICO and LERMA C.

TIOTUICO
Peralta, J. March 9, 2015 G.R. Nos. 187606
As per Sec. 331, Rule 39, ROC, the remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available to the mortgagee-purchaser to acquire
possession of the foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is made available to a subsequent purchaser, but only after hearing and after
determining that the subject property is still in the possession of the mortgagor. Unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a third party
during the redemption period, a writ of possession may issue ex-parte or without hearing. In other words, if the purchaser is a third party
Doctrine who acquired the property after the redemption period, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether possession over the subject
property is still with the mortgagor or is already in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor or
mortgagor. If the property is in the possession of the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus be issued. Otherwise, the remedy of a writ
of possession is no longer available to such purchaser, but he can wrest possession over the property through an ordinary action of
ejectment. (Okabe v. Saturnino)
In default of a loan, Guagua Rural Bank foreclosed on the property of petitioner. After expiration of one year redemption period, the bank
subsequently sold property to respondent spouses. In order to gain possession of land, the latter filed a petition of writ of possession which
Summary the Court granted. The Court ruled that hearing conducted by lower court is proper. The Court also rejected petitioner's argument that
ejectment suit, instead of writ of possession must be file; because to file an ejectment case will just prolong proceedings and unduly deny
spouses of their right to possession, which was only a necessary incident of his right as an absolute owner of the property.
,

 Mortgaged of property: Petitioner owns 1,000 sqm parcel of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga, which she mortgaged to Guagua Rural
Bank, as security for loan she obtained from the said Bank.
 Foreclosure of mortgage: Petitioner failed to pay her obligation and the Bank foreclosed the mortgage. The subject lot was sold at
public auction where the Bank was the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was then issued in favor of the Bank. After the one-year
redemption period has expired without petitioner having redeemed the disputed property, the Bank consolidated its ownership over
the same. Thus, a new title was issued in the name of the Bank.
 Sale of land to respondent: Subsequently, respondents bought the subject lot from the Bank and a new title was issued in their name.
 Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession: filed by respondents with RTC Pampanga; ruled in their favor
 Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Possession pending appeal: filed by respondents while pending petitioner's appeal; granted. ||
Facts
MR by petitioner: denied.
 Petition for Certiorari with CA: as regards validity of writ issued - denied. || MR denied.
 Petition for Review on Certiorari with SC: denied. || MR denied. || Thereafter, the Court issued an Entry of Judgment, stating that
the decision had become final and executory.
 Motion to implement the Writ of Possesion: filed by respondents; granted by RTC. || MR by petitioner - denied.
 Special Civil Action for Certiorari before CA: filed by petitioner but dismissed by CA. This is just a scheme to delay the
implementation of the disputed writ of possession. In any case, the CA held that, as owners of the subject property, respondents are
entitled to its possession as a matter of right and that the issuance of the questioned writ is merely a ministerial function on the part of
the RTC. || MR denied. || Hence, this present petition.
I. WON the respondents are entitled, as a matter of right, to the issuance of a writ of possession when they merely bought the
subject property through private transaction and NOT through land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosure and
extrajudicial foreclosure.
Petitioner's argument:
Under the law, the Bank, being the buyer of the disputed lot during foreclosure sale, is the only one who is entitled, as a matter of
right, to the issuance of the said writ; that respondents, being subsequent buyers of the subject property, should instead, resort to the
appropriate judicial remedy, which is ejectment or accion reivindicatoria (AR) in order to gain possession thereof.
Court Ruling:
 Yes, respondents must resort to judicial remedy. However, ejectment or AR is not the only available remedy.
Ratio/  SEE DOCTRINE. Reason: To immediately require the subsequent purchaser to file a separate case of ejectment instead of a
Issues petition for the issuance of a writ of possession will only prolong the proceedings and unduly deny the subsequent purchaser of
possession of the property which he already bought, as his right to such possession is simply a natural and necessary incident of his
right as an absolute owner of the property.
 While respondents' petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed ex-parte, a “hearing” was, nonetheless, conducted when
the RTC gave petitioner her day in court by giving her the opportunity to file various pleadings to oppose respondent's petition.
 Moreover, there is no dispute that petitioner remained in possession of the subject property prior to the issuance of the questioned
writ of possession. It is, thus, clear that respondents' resort, as a subsequent or third-party purchaser, to the petition for the issuance
of a writ of possession is proper.
 Finally, certiorari petition questioning the implementation of the subject writ of possession is a mere ploy to simply delay such
implementation considering that the writ was issued almost ten (10) years ago. Judgment has long been final and executory, thus
there is no other recourse but to immediately proceed with implementation of writ.
Held Petition DENIED. CA AFFIRMED.
Prepared by: KM Liberato [Credit | RVazquez]

1 SEC. 33: Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given. — If no redemption be made within one
(1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so
redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and no other redemption has been made, and notice thereof given, and the time for redemption has
expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance and possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one
(1) year from the date of the registration of the sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the officer making the sale or by his
successor in office, and in the latter case shall have the same validity as though the officer making the sale had continued in office and executed it.
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim
of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner
by the same officer unless a third party adversely to the judgment obligor.