G.R. No. 198925 , July 13, 2016
SPOUSES ARCHIBAL LATOJA and CHARITO LATOJA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE ELVIE LIM, Presiding Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Borongan, Eastern Samar, ATTY. JESUS APELADO, Register of Deeds, Borongan, Eastern Samar, ALVARO CAPITO, as Sheriff, Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Borongan, Eastern Samar, and TERESITA CABE, represented by ADELINA ZAMORA, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Teresita Cabe purchased a parcel of land from Donato Cardona II under a Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro. Upon Cardona II’s failure to repurchase, Cabe filed and won a Petition for Consolidation of Ownership. The trial court’s 2002 Decision became final and executory in 2005 after the Supreme Court denied Cardona II’s appeal. Consequently, OCT No. 41 was cancelled and a new TCT was issued in Cabe’s name. Cabe then moved for a writ of possession, which was granted by public respondent Judge Elvie Lim, acting as presiding judge of RTC-Br. 2.
Petitioners Spouses Latoja, alleging grave abuse of discretion, sought to annul the Order granting the writ. They claimed a prior interest in the same property by virtue of a 2006 Judgment by Compromise rendered by the same Judge Lim (then presiding over RTC-Br. 1) in a partition case between the Latojas and Cardona II’s parents. That judgment awarded the spouses a 50% pro indiviso share in the property. The Latojas, in possession of a portion, argued the writ of possession should not issue against them given their vested rights under the compromise judgment.

ISSUE

Whether public respondent Judge Lim committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order granting the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession in favor of Cabe.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The Court first relaxed procedural rules, overlooking the petitioners’ direct filing with the Supreme Court and lack of a prior motion for reconsideration, to resolve the substantive merits in the interest of justice. On the merits, the Court ruled that a writ of possession, being a ministerial issuance to enforce a final judgment, is generally not subject to discretion once title is consolidated. However, this ministerial duty is not absolute. It yields when the party in possession asserts a right to possession that is independent of, and adverse to, the judgment debtor’s title from whom the property was acquired.
Here, the Latojas were not parties to the consolidation case between Cabe and Cardona II. Their claim of ownership and possession was derived from a separate final judgment (the 2006 compromise agreement) involving different parties (the Cardona spouses). Consequently, they were not bound by the consolidation judgment. By granting the writ of possession without considering the Latojas’ adverse claim of title and possession under a separate final decree, Judge Lim acted in a capricious manner, effectively allowing execution against non-parties. The proper remedy was for Cabe to file a separate action, such as an accion publiciana or reinvindicatoria, against the Latojas to assert her superior title. The issuance of the writ under these circumstances was a patent nullity, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court made the temporary restraining order permanent and nullified the assailed Order and the writ of possession.