GR L 45531; (April, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45531; April 19, 1939
FRED OMNAS and JOSE TANDINGAN GADIL, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PABLO S. RIVERA, Judge of First Instance of Abra, and EULALIA BELLO, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Eulalia Bello obtained a money judgment against Jose Tandingan Gadil in 1931. To satisfy the judgment, Gadil’s land was sold at public auction to Bello, with a certificate of sale issued on December 24, 1932. Bello did not immediately take possession. On October 15, 1935, Bello filed a motion for a writ of possession, which the respondent judge granted on January 8, 1936, and the writ was executed. Fred Omnas and Gadil filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. They appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser at a public auction sale conducted to satisfy a money judgment, after the lapse of a significant period from the sale.
RULING
Yes, the court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, denying the petition. The Court held that a writ of possession is a complement of a writ of execution. Since the writ of execution was issued within the five-year prescriptive period provided by law (Section 443 of Act No. 190 , the Code of Civil Procedure) from the finality of the judgment, the court retained jurisdiction to issue the ancillary writ of possession. This jurisdiction exists unless, in the interval between the judicial sale and the motion for the writ, the judgment debtor has ceased to be the owner of the property (e.g., due to rights acquired by third parties). No such circumstance was shown in this case.
AI Generated by Armztrong.