GR 148182; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148182. March 7, 2007.
URSULA MAGLENTE, CONSOLACION BERJA, MERCEDITA FERRER, THELMA ABELLA and ANTONIO NGO, Petitioners, vs. HON. PRISCILLA BALTAZAR-PADILLA, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Manila Branch 38, VISITACION GABELO, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were declared the rightful parties to purchase a property from Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC) in an interpleader case, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The final judgment ordered PRC to execute a contract of sale in favor of petitioners, which was subsequently done. Petitioners, having obtained title, then filed a motion in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of a writ of possession to oust respondents, who were sublessees in possession of the property.
The RTC denied the motion for a writ of possession. It ruled that the final judgment in the interpleader case merely resolved the question of who had the right to purchase the property from PRC and ordered the execution of the sale. It did not contain any specific order for the delivery of possession of the property to petitioners. Respondents, as occupants, were not parties to the contract of sale between PRC and petitioners.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are entitled to a writ of possession as a consequence of the final judgment in the interpleader case and the subsequent execution of a deed of sale in their favor.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s denial of the writ of possession. A writ of possession is a summary and extraordinary remedy issued only in specific instances enumerated by law, such as land registration proceedings, extrajudicial or judicial foreclosure sales (under certain conditions), and execution sales. The case at bar does not fall under any of these categories.
The final judgment in the interpleader case was limited to determining the right to purchase. The directive was solely for PRC to execute the necessary contract of sale. It did not adjudicate possession or order the ejectment of the respondents who were in occupancy. The subsequent deed of sale transferred ownership to petitioners, but ownership is distinct from possession. The transfer of title does not automatically entitle the buyer to a writ of possession, especially against occupants who are not parties to the sale and who derive their possession from a prior transaction.
To recover physical possession of the property from the respondents, petitioners must institute the appropriate separate action, such as an action for ejectment or for recovery of possession. They cannot shortcut this process through a mere motion for a writ of possession in the concluded interpleader case. The Court emphasized that while this separate action may cause delay, it is the orderly process established by law for resolving disputes over possession.