G.R. No. 185407 , June 22, 2015
SIO TIAT KING, Petitioner, vs. VICENTE G. LIM, MICHAEL GEORGE O. LIM, MATHEW VINCENT O. LIM, MEL PATRICK O. LIM, MOISES FRANCIS W. LIM, MARVIN JOHN W. LIM, and SAARSTAHL PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 94-71083, the Spouses Calidguid executed a Compromise Agreement to pay the Spouses Lee, which was approved by the RTC. Upon the spouses’ failure to comply, a Writ of Execution was issued, and their property covered by TCT No. 85561 was levied and sold at public auction, with the judgment creditor, Jaime Lee, as the highest bidder. As an assignee of the Spouses Calidguid, petitioner Sio Tiat King redeemed the property before the expiration of the redemption period, and a Certificate of Redemption was issued. More than 11 years later, King filed a motion for a writ of possession, which the RTC granted. A Notice to Vacate was served, addressed to the Spouses Calidguid, their agents, and all persons claiming rights under them at the property’s address. Respondents, the Lims, filed a Third Party Claim, asserting ownership of the same property under TCT No. 122207, and moved to quash the writ. The RTC denied their motion, ruling that the earlier-issued TCT of the Spouses Calidguid prevailed. The Lims filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA granted the petition, annulled the RTC order, and quashed the writ of possession, without prejudice to any separate action King may file. King’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Lims may be evicted from the property by virtue of a writ of possession issued in favor of King.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that a writ of possession may be issued only upon the expiration of the redemption period without a redemption having been made, and only to a purchaser or redemptioner in the execution sale. King, as an assignee and successor-in-interest of the judgment debtors (Spouses Calidguid), redeemed the property. Therefore, he was not a redemptioner entitled to a writ of possession under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The redemption restored full ownership of the property to the judgment debtors, whom King substituted. The writ of possession and the Notice to Vacate were contradictory, as they sought to evict persons claiming rights under the Spouses Calidguid, which included King himself. Furthermore, the Lims, as occupants under a claim of ownership, could not be summarily evicted via a writ of possession in a long-terminated case. The judgment had been fully satisfied by the redemption. Issues regarding the ownership of the property, including claims of a fictitious title, must be resolved in a separate proceeding.