Facts:

The case involves Francisco M. Angeles as the petitioner and the Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and the heirs of the late Filomena Vda. de Cayetano as respondents. The events leading to this case began with the spouses Pablo Cayetano and Filomena Mendoza, who were the registered owners of a lot in Sampaloc, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42347. Pablo passed away on January 3, 1960. On April 10, 1961, Filomena and her children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sale of Pablo's estate, transferring their shares to Filomena, making her and the children of Manuel (who had predeceased his parents) co-owners of the property. This led to the cancellation of TCT No. 42347 and the issuance of TCT No. 68065 in their names.

On November 10, 1980, Filomena sold half of the lot to her son Juanito, which resulted in the issuance of TCT No. 140500. Subsequently, Juanito presented an Agreement of Partition of Common Property to the Register of Deeds, ...

Facts:

Ownership and Transfer of Property

• The spouses Pablo Cayetano and Filomena Mendoza owned a lot in Sampaloc, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42347.
• Pablo died on January 3, 1960. On April 10, 1961, Filomena and her children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sale of Pablo’s estate. Eleuterio and Candido sold their shares to Filomena, while the other children (except Manuel, who predeceased his parents) transferred their shares to her. Filomena and Manuel’s three children became co-owners of the property.
• TCT No. 42347 was cancelled, and TCT No. 68065 was issued to Filomena and Manuel’s children.

Sale and Partition Agreement

• On November 10, 1980, Filomena sold one-half (1/2) of the lot to Juanito, her son. TCT No. 140500 was issued to Juanito, Filomena, and Manuel’s children.
• Juanito later presented an Agreement of Partition of Common Property, allegedly signed by all heirs, adjudicating the same one-half portion to him. Based on this, TCT No. 146787 was issued to Juanito for Lot 40-A, and TCT No. 146788 to Filomena and Manuel’s children for the other half.

Legal Disputes

• In 1981, Filomena sued Juanito to annul the sale of Lot 40-A due to his failure to pay the consideration. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 81-001.
• Despite the lawsuit, Juanito sold his one-half share to Bartolome Guevarra on December 22, 1981, under a deed of sale with right to repurchase. Juanito later borrowed P25,000 from petitioner Francisco M. Angeles to redeem the property and mortgaged it to Angeles on January 21, 1982. The mortgage was registered on January 22, 1982.
• On March 6, 1982, Juanito obtained an additional loan of P70,000 from Angeles, secured by the same mortgage, registered on March 8, 1982.

Forgery Allegations and Foreclosure

• The other heirs of Pablo disowned the Agreement of Partition, claiming it was forged. They demanded that Juanito pay the mortgage and reconvey the property to them. Angeles was notified of this demand on April 20, 1982.
• On May 24, 1982, Angeles foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold at public auction to him on June 28, 1982. A final deed of sale was issued, and TCT No. 155284 was registered in Angeles’ name on July 1, 1983.

Ejectment and Legal Actions

• On July 13, 1984, the heirs (except Juanito) filed Civil Case No. 84-25611 to annul the sale and partition agreement. Angeles filed a petition for a writ of possession, which was granted on August 23, 1984. The writ was enforced on January 16, 1985, ejecting the heirs from the property.
• The heirs filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which ruled in their favor, limiting the writ of possession to Juanito and his wife and excluding the other heirs.

Issue:

1. Whether the writ of possession issued by the trial court could be enforced against the heirs of Filomena, who were not parties to the mortgage transaction.
2. Whether Angeles was an innocent mortgagee and purchaser for value and in good faith.
3. Whether the remedy of certiorari was appropriate in this case.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The writ of possession could not be enforced against the heirs of Filomena, as they were not parties to the mortgage and had adverse claims to the property. Angeles was not considered an innocent mortgagee and purchaser for value and in good faith, as he had actual knowledge of the heirs’ adverse claims. Certiorari was deemed the proper remedy, as appeal would not have provided prompt relief.

Ratio:

1. Writ of Possession: Under Act No. 3135 and the Revised Rules of Court, a writ of possession may not be enforced against third parties who are in adverse possession of the property and were not parties to the mortgage or foreclosure proceedings. The heirs of Filomena were in adverse possession and had filed legal actions to assert their claims.
2. Innocent Mortgagee and Purchaser for Value: Angeles could not claim to be an innocent mortgagee and purchaser for value because he had actual knowledge of the heirs’ adverse claims through the demand letter dated April 20, 1982. The maxim that the spring cannot rise higher than its source applies, meaning Angeles’ rights could not exceed those of Juanito, who had a flawed title.
3. Remedy of Certiorari: Certiorari was the proper remedy, as appeal would not have provided timely relief given the immediate enforcement of the writ of possession. The trial court acted without jurisdiction in issuing the writ against the heirs.