GR 228138; (August, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228138 , August 27, 2020
REMEDIOS M. MASCARINAS, PETITIONER, VS. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent BPI Family Savings Bank foreclosed a property, Lot 3-30-C-2, and obtained a writ of possession from the RTC. When the sheriff attempted to implement the writ, petitioner Remedios Mascarinas, the occupant, objected. She claimed the sheriff was at the wrong location and that the lot being targeted was actually her adjacent property, Lot 3-30-C-1, which she had purchased at an auction. Both lots were formerly owned by the same person and are situated along the boundaries of Quezon City and Caloocan City, causing confusion. Mascarinas moved to quash the writ, submitting an LRA-approved sketch plan to prove the bank’s lot was part of a street. The bank countered with its own relocation survey. The RTC denied the motion, emphasizing the writ pertained to the bank’s specific title.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner’s motion for a 15-day extension to file a petition for certiorari, thereby dismissing her appeal on procedural grounds, and whether a survey of the contested lots is necessary to prevent the erroneous enforcement of the writ of possession.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and granted the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that while A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC generally prohibits extensions to file a Rule 65 petition, the rule is not absolute. The higher interest of substantial justice warrants relaxation in this case. The core dispute involves a genuine conflict over property identity and location, posing a risk of irreparable injury if the writ is enforced on the wrong land. Denying review on a strict procedural technicality would defeat justice.
On the substantive issue, the Court ordered a survey. The technical descriptions confirm the lots are adjacent but located in different cities. The parties have irreconcilable claims about the exact physical locations, with petitioner alleging the bank’s property is now a public street. To ensure the writ is executed only on the correct property and to avoid a clear miscarriage of justice, a survey is an indispensable and necessary measure. The RTC was directed to appoint a surveyor to definitively ascertain the boundaries of both lots.