G.R. No. 124582 ; June 16, 2000
Reggie Christi Limpo, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Veronica Gonzales, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reggie Christi Limpo was held civilly liable to private respondent Veronica Gonzales in criminal cases for estafa and BP 22 violations. The judgment became final. To satisfy the liability, two parcels of land registered in Limpo’s name were levied upon and sold at public auction to Gonzales as the highest bidder. After the redemption period lapsed without redemption, a final deed of sale was issued. Gonzales then successfully petitioned the RTC under Section 107 of P.D. No. 1529 to compel Limpo to surrender her owner’s duplicate certificates of title. Upon Limpo’s failure to comply, the court ordered the cancellation of her titles and the issuance of new ones in Gonzales’s name. This order became final.
Subsequently, Gonzales filed an ex parte petition in the RTC for a writ of possession over the properties. The court granted the petition and issued the writ. Limpo moved to set it aside, arguing she was not furnished a copy of the petition nor given notice, depriving her of due process. She contended that a writ of possession under Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court cannot be issued ex parte but only after a hearing. The RTC denied her motion, prompting a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of possession ex parte pursuant to Rule 39, Section 35 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The issuance of the writ of possession was proper. Rule 39, Section 35 explicitly provides that upon the execution of the certificate of sale by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at an execution sale, and upon its registration, the court shall, upon motion of the purchaser, issue a writ of possession. The law uses the mandatory term “shall.” The purchaser at an execution sale is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right, and its issuance is a ministerial duty of the court. No hearing is required, and it may be issued ex parte.
The Court clarified that the ex parte nature of such a writ under Rule 39 is distinct from the writ issued in extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135 . In execution sales to satisfy a money judgment, the writ is a logical consequence of the judicial process. Since Gonzales’s title, derived from the execution sale and subsequent court orders for cancellation and re-issuance of titles, had already become incontrovertible, she had a clear right to possession. Limpo’s claim of lack of notice was irrelevant, as the issuance was a ministerial act following the consolidation of title in Gonzales’s favor. The trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion.