GR 156542; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156542 , June 26, 2007
CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT, Petitioner, vs. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, (PHILS.), INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Panay Railways, Inc. (PRI) mortgaged six parcels of land to Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and, upon default, the properties were foreclosed. TRB acquired the titles and later sold portions of three lots (Lots 3834, 1-A, and 6153) to spouses Edmundo and Candelaria Dayot. TRB had previously secured a writ of possession from the RTC after consolidation of title. Petitioner Candelaria Dayot was substituted for TRB in the land registration case and obtained an alias writ of possession. Separately, the spouses Dayot filed a civil case for recovery of ownership and possession against Shell and others, asserting ownership over the portion of Lot 6153 occupied by Shell. While that civil case was pending, petitioner filed in the land registration case an amended motion for a writ of possession specifically to eject Shell from Lot 6153.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court, acting as a land registration court, properly issued an alias writ of possession against Shell Chemical Company, a party claiming ownership and possession adversely to the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, in issuing the alias writ, acted without jurisdiction. A land registration court, in a petition for a writ of possession following a foreclosure sale, exercises limited jurisdiction. Its ministerial duty to issue the writ is unavailing when there is a serious adverse claim over the property raised by a third party who was not the mortgagor or its successor-in-interest. Shell was not a party to the mortgage contract between PRI and TRB. Its possession was derived from a different source of title, and it was actively asserting ownership in a separate pending civil case. The issuance of a writ of possession is a summary proceeding intended to place the purchaser in possession without delay, but it cannot be used to adjudicate contentious issues of ownership. Where a third party asserts a right adverse to that of the mortgagor and the purchaser, the proper recourse is an ordinary civil action, not a summary land registration proceeding. The Court of Appeals correctly nullified the RTC’s orders and writ, as the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively resolving a substantive issue of ownership through a summary process.