GR 75009; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 75009 September 29, 1989
FRANCISCO M. ANGELES, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND HEIRS OF THE LATE FILOMENA VDA. DE CAYETANO, respondents.
FACTS
The property in dispute was originally owned by spouses Pablo Cayetano and Filomena Mendoza. After Pablo’s death, an extrajudicial settlement was executed. Filomena later sold a one-half portion of the lot to her son, Juanito Cayetano. Subsequently, Juanito presented a forged “Agreement of Partition” to the Register of Deeds, securing a separate title for that half-portion. Despite a pending annulment suit filed by Filomena against Juanito over this sale, Juanito mortgaged the property to petitioner Francisco M. Angeles. After Juanito defaulted, Angeles foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the property at auction, and obtained a new title. He then filed a petition for a writ of possession.
The other heirs of Pablo and Filomena (private respondents) were not parties to the mortgage or foreclosure. They had filed actions to annul the sale to Juanito and the forged partition agreement and were in possession of portions of the property. Nevertheless, the trial court granted Angeles’s petition for a writ of possession, which was enforced, ejecting the private respondents. They challenged this order via certiorari in the Intermediate Appellate Court, which ruled in their favor, annulling the writ. Angeles elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of possession that dispossessed the private respondents, who were not parties to the mortgage contract and foreclosure proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, denying the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the limited scope of a writ of possession issued in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Such a writ is a summary proceeding intended to place the purchaser in possession of the property. Crucially, it can only be enforced against the mortgagor (or their successors-in-interest) who were parties to the deed of mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure. It cannot be used to eject third parties who are in possession of the property under a claim of title adverse to that of the mortgagor.
The private respondents here were not parties to the mortgage executed by Juanito in favor of Angeles. Their possession was not derived from Juanito but from the original owners, Pablo and Filomena, and they asserted an independent adverse claim through pending civil and criminal cases challenging the very title Juanito used to mortgage the property. Since a serious question of legal title existed, it could not be summarily resolved in a mere petition for a writ of possession. The proper recourse for Angeles was to establish his title in an appropriate action, not through a summary proceeding. The trial court, by issuing the writ against these adverse claimants, acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Certiorari was the correct remedy for the respondents as appeal was inadequate given the speedy and injurious enforcement of the writ.