G.R. No. 209672-74 January 14, 2015
EDMUND SIA, Petitioner, vs. WILFREDO ARCENAS, FERNANDO LOPEZ, and PABLO RAFANAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Due to real property tax delinquencies of Panay Railways, Incorporated (PRI) for the years 1992 to 1996, the City Treasurer of Roxas City auctioned the subject lots (Lot 145-A and Lot No. 1839-pt), with petitioner Edmund Sia as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was issued on December 20, 1996. However, the City Treasurer refused to issue a Final Bill of Sale after the redemption period lapsed, and Mayor Juliano Alba issued Executive Order No. 08-97 nullifying the auction sale. Petitioner filed a Petition for annulment of EO 08-97, mandamus, and damages before the RTC (Branch 17), docketed as SCA No. V-7075, seeking to compel the issuance of the Final Bill of Sale. The RTC ruled in petitioner’s favor, ordering the City Treasurer to issue the Final Bill of Sale. This decision was affirmed by the CA and became final and executory after the Supreme Court denied PRI’s appeal. Petitioner moved for execution before the RTC (Branch 15), and a Writ of Execution was issued on February 28, 2008. The City Treasurer still refused to issue the Final Bill of Sale, claiming petitioner needed to settle additional delinquent taxes accrued during the pendency of the case. Instead of paying, petitioner filed a motion for an order divesting PRI of title and vesting it in him, which the RTC granted. Petitioner then moved for delivery of possession of the lots, which were occupied by third parties, including respondents Wilfredo Arcenas, Fernando Lopez, and Pablo Rafanan (lessees of PRI). The RTC issued a Writ of Possession (June 19, 2009) and a Writ of Demolition (August 28, 2009) in petitioner’s favor. Respondents moved to quash the writs, arguing that the final judgment in SCA No. V-7075 was a mandamus case where a writ of possession is proscribed, and execution should be under Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The RTC denied the motion. Respondents elevated the matter to the CA via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly declared the writs of possession and demolition null and void and directed the RTC to enforce the Writ of Execution in accordance with Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s ruling. The petition in SCA No. V-7075 was primarily one for mandamus, seeking to compel the City Treasurer to issue a Final Bill of Sale, a ministerial duty under Section 262 of the Local Government Code. The judgment therein was a special judgment directing the performance of a specific act. The execution of such a special judgment is governed by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 9, Rule 65. The rule limits execution to directing compliance with the judgment, and in case of disobedience, punishing the disobedient person (the City Treasurer) for contempt. The RTC (Branch 15) exceeded its authority by issuing the writs of possession and demolition, which were beyond the ambit of the mandamus judgment. A writ of possession is a remedy proper in extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage under Act No. 3135, as amended, or in judicial foreclosure, but not in a mandamus case like this. The proper course was for the RTC to cite the City Treasurer in contempt for refusing to issue the Final Bill of Sale, not to grant ancillary writs of possession and demolition. The CA correctly set aside the void writs and directed the RTC to enforce the Writ of Execution in accordance with the rules on special judgments.