G.R. No. L-24358 March 31, 1971
ELISEO GUEVARA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PLACIDO C. RAMOS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

A final judgment for damages was rendered against Petra Evangelista and her minor children, the widow and children of the deceased David Guevara. To satisfy this judgment, the creditors caused the levy and execution sale of a parcel of land declared for taxation in the names of the judgment debtors. Prior to the auction sale, the siblings of David Guevara (the petitioners) filed third-party claims, asserting ownership by inheritance over a ten-eleventh portion of the land and one-half of the house. Despite these claims and an indemnity bond posted by a judgment creditor, the sheriff proceeded with the sale. The property was purchased by creditor Bernabe Flores, who later assigned his rights to his counsel, Maximo Calalang.
After the redemption period expired, Flores obtained a sheriff’s deed and moved for a writ of possession. The judgment debtors opposed, citing the pending third-party claims and a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 7720) filed by the petitioners to vindicate their ownership. The lower court granted the writ and later ordered the third-party claimants to vacate, threatening contempt. The petitioners then filed this prohibition case to prevent enforcement of the writ.

ISSUE

May the assertion of ownership by third-party claimants, who were not in possession at the time of the execution sale, defeat the purchaser’s right to possession after the expiration of the redemption period?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession. Under Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a purchaser at an execution sale is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property if no redemption is made within twelve months. This right is predicated on the assumption that the property belonged to the judgment debtor. The Court clarified that this right to possession is not defeated merely because a third party asserts a claim of ownership.
The Court distinguished the situation where a property levied upon is occupied by someone other than the judgment debtor. In such cases, the proper procedure is for the court to conduct a hearing to determine the nature of that adverse possession. However, such a hearing was deemed unnecessary here for two key reasons. First, the third-party claimants were not in possession of the land at the time of the auction sale on February 25, 1963. Second, the tax declaration covering the property was still in the names of the judgment debtors at the time of the levy and sale. The petitioners only took possession during the redemption period. Their claim of ownership, while the subject of a separate civil case, does not automatically bar the issuance of the writ of possession to the purchaser. The writ was properly issued, and the remedy of the claimants is to pursue their independent action to assert their title.