G.R. No. 75009 September 29, 1989
FRANCISCO M. ANGELES, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND HEIRS OF THE LATE FILOMENA VDA. DE CAYETANO, respondents.

FACTS

The property in dispute, originally owned by spouses Pablo Cayetano and Filomena Mendoza, became co-owned by Filomena and the children of her predeceased son, Manuel, after an extrajudicial settlement. Filomena later sold a one-half portion to her son Juanito. Subsequently, Juanito presented a forged “Agreement of Partition” to the Register of Deeds, securing a separate title for that same portion. Despite a pending annulment suit filed by Filomena against Juanito over this sale, Juanito mortgaged the property to petitioner Francisco Angeles. After Juanito defaulted, Angeles foreclosed, purchased the property at auction, and obtained title. Angeles then petitioned for a writ of possession, which the trial court granted, leading to the eviction of Juanito and other heirs (private respondents) from the premises.
The other heirs, private respondents, had consistently challenged Juanito’s title. They filed a civil case to annul the sale and the forged partition agreement and a criminal case for falsification. They were not parties to the mortgage contracts between Juanito and Angeles nor to the foreclosure proceedings. Their possession of the property was derived from their inheritance from the original owner, Pablo, and was adverse to Juanito’s claim.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of possession against the private respondents, who were not parties to the mortgage and foreclosure and who claimed adverse title to the property.

RULING

Yes, the trial court acted without jurisdiction. A writ of possession is a summary proceeding designed to place a foreclosure purchaser in possession of the property. It is issued as a matter of course upon the filing of a proper motion and approval of the corresponding bond. However, this writ cannot be enforced against persons who were not parties to the mortgage deed or the foreclosure proceeding and who are in possession of the property under a claim of title adverse to that of the mortgagor. The right to the writ is based on the purchaser’s derivative title from the mortgagor; it cannot be used to eject third parties who assert independent rights of ownership.
The private respondents were precisely such third parties. Their possession was not derived from the mortgagor, Juanito, but from their father, Pablo. Their adverse claim was evidenced by the pending civil and criminal cases they instituted to annul Juanito’s title. The trial court, in summarily issuing the writ against them, effectively decided a complex question of ownership in a proceeding not suited for that purpose. The proper recourse for Angeles, as the purchaser, was to institute a separate ejectment or accion publiciana suit to litigate the issue of possession vis-à-vis these adverse claimants. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the writ of possession as it pertained to the private respondents.