GR 187606; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187606. March 9, 2015.
NORMA V. JAVATE, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RENATO J. TIOTUICO and LERMA C. TIOTUICO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Norma V. Javate owned a parcel of land mortgaged to Guagua Rural Bank. Due to her failure to pay the loan, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the property at the auction, and, after the redemption period expired, consolidated its ownership and obtained a new title. Subsequently, respondent spouses bought the property from the bank and were issued a new title. On December 9, 2004, respondents filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC, which was granted on July 15, 2005. Petitioner appealed. Pending appeal, the RTC granted respondents’ motion for issuance of the writ pending appeal. Petitioner’s certiorari petition to the CA was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 185266), which was denied, and the decision became final and executory on October 8, 2009. Meanwhile, on April 1, 2008, respondents moved to implement the writ, which the RTC granted. Petitioner filed a certiorari petition with the CA challenging the implementation, which the CA dismissed, prompting the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not 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.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that while respondents, as subsequent purchasers, must resort to “judicial process” to obtain possession, a petition for a writ of possession is a proper remedy, not limited to ejectment or accion reivindicatoria. Citing Okabe v. Saturnino, the Court ruled that a subsequent purchaser of an extrajudicially foreclosed property may be issued a writ of possession after a hearing to determine if the mortgagor remains in possession. In this case, a hearing was conducted as petitioner was given the opportunity to file pleadings opposing the petition. Since petitioner remained in possession, respondents’ resort to a writ of possession was proper. The Court also noted that requiring a separate ejectment case would prolong proceedings and unduly deny the purchaser possession. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the CA that petitioner’s actions were a ploy to delay implementation, as the writ’s issuance had been upheld in a final and executory decision (G.R. No. 185266).