G.R. No. 188069 - Bascara vs. Javier

Respondent Evangeline C. Pangilinan filed an ex parte petition on August 1, 2006 for the issuance of a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 06-0036-CFM before RTC, Branch 111, Pasay City.
The petition alleged that on August 13, 2004, Rosalina P. Pardo executed a real estate mortgage (REM) in favor of Pangilinan as security for a P200,000.00 loan, which led to the foreclosed property being sold at public auction.
After the expiration of the one-year redemption period without redemption by Pardo, Pangilinan consolidated the title in her name, as evidenced by TCT No. 147777.

On January 31, 2007, the trial court granted the petition, and a Notice to Vacate and Surrender Possession was issued by Sheriff Rolando G. Javier on April 15, 2007 pursuant to the writ issued on March 26, 2007.
Petitioner Reynaldo P. Bascara, claiming to be the true, lawful, and absolute owner of the subject property through a donation mortis causa executed by Pardo, filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim and a Motion to Recall the Writ of Possession on April 23, 2007.

Prior to the writ of possession, Pangilinan had also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim in RTC, Branch 108, involving annotations carried over from TCT No. 135066, originally in the name of Pardo.
A Third-Party Claimant, asserting his status as the nephew and ward of the late Pardo and beneficiary of a donation mortis causa, filed an Opposition and Motion to Dismiss this petition.
Evidence presented by the Third-Party Claimant included:

Allegations that the documents executed by the purported Pardo, including the REM and the Community Tax Certificate, were fraudulent.
Demonstration that the signature and thumbmarks on the mortgage documents were not those of the true, long-deceased Pardo, but rather of an impostor identified as a former boarder named Cacalda.

In April 2007, separate from the petition for the writ of possession, petitioner filed an action for Annulment of Title and Damages against Pangilinan and Robert H. Guillermo (in his official capacity as Register of Deeds) under Civil Case No. 07-0529-CFM.
Subsequent pleadings and exchanges in both the LRC and the annulment case highlighted the complex interplay between the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and the dispute over ownership arising from the donation mortis causa.
The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangilinan by denying petitioner’s motion to recall the writ of possession and his motion for reconsideration, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the appellate level.

Section 7 of Act No. 3135 (as amended) was cited as governing the issuance of the writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure sales, mandating that a purchaser may obtain possession once the redemption period lapses without redemption.
Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was noted regarding the exception for third parties actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor, though this was determined not to apply to the petitioner’s situation.
Case precedents such as Spouses Arquiza, Autocorp Group, Chailease Finance, and others were relied upon to underscore the ministerial duty of the court in issuing the writ where the statutory requirements had been met.
The nature of donation mortis causa was underscored by reference to Articles 728, 805, and 806 of the New Civil Code, emphasizing its testamentary character and the need for proper probate to effectuate a title transfer.

Whether the trial court's issuance of the writ of possession was correct under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, given that the redemption period had expired and there was no third party in adverse possession.

Whether the petitioner’s claim as a transferee or successor-in-interest via a donation mortis causa conferred an independent right to recall the writ of possession.
Whether the alleged donation, being of a testamentary nature, met the formal requisites (probate, solemnities) necessary for an immediate title transfer.

Whether the allegations regarding the fabrication of signatures, thumbmarks, and other documentary irregularities in the REM affect the legitimacy of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and the subsequent consolidation of title in Pangilinan’s name.