G.R. No. 195445 - De Guzman vs. Chico

The subject property is located at 7-A 32 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City, originally registered in the name of the petitioners under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 164900.
On May 24, 2006, the property was sold at a public auction of tax delinquent properties conducted by the City Government of Makati City pursuant to Sections 254 to 260 of the Local Government Code.
Respondent became the winning bidder at the auction, and the City Government of Makati executed a Certificate of Sale in her favor on the same day.
The petitioners did not redeem the property within the one-year redemption period allowed by law.

On July 12, 2007, respondent filed an application with the RTC of Makati City under Section 75 (in relation to Section 107) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, seeking the issuance of a new certificate of title.
On December 28, 2007, after a hearing, the RTC ordered the consolidation of the title and its transfer in the name of respondent.
Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Makati canceled TCT No. 164900 and issued a new title, TCT No. T-224923, in favor of respondent.

Respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of possession; her initial motion was denied due to a technical lapse in setting the motion for hearing.
On January 14, 2009, respondent refiled an Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession under LRC Case No. M-5188 with the RTC of Makati City.
The petition was raffled to Branch 59, and on April 1, 2009, the court granted respondent’s ex parte petition, resulting in the issuance of the writ of possession on August 7, 2009.

Cite respondent in contempt.
Nullify the proceedings on the ground that the ex parte petition contained a defective or false verification/certification of non-forum shopping.

The ex parte petition was not an initiatory pleading and thus did not require a certificate of non-forum shopping.
Petitioners’ motion to present respondent and her counsel as witnesses was without merit.

Petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 19, 2010.
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the issue by filing a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to annul the January 19, 2010 and April 19, 2010 orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion and improper application of law.

On January 31, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition as lacking merit and affirmed the orders denying petitioners’ motions.
The CA ruled:

No certificate against forum shopping was required for an ex parte petition for a writ of possession, as the latter is not an initiatory pleading.
There was no forum shopping, given that the writ of possession is a ministerial, summary function incident to the transfer of title.
Petitioners’ argument regarding the applicable statutory regime (i.e., Sections 246 to 270 of the Local Government Code versus Act No. 3135) was untimely raised and beyond judicial review, since the underlying tax auction sale proceedings had already become final and executory.

The CA erred in ruling that a certificate of non-forum shopping was unnecessary, citing sections of Act No. 3135 and precedents requiring such certification.
The proceedings should have been conducted as an accion reivindicatoria rather than an ex parte petition, rendering the proceedings void.

An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is inherently a motion, not an initiatory pleading, and thus does not require a certificate against forum shopping.
Forum shopping did not occur, and the petitioners were, in fact, engaging in forum shopping themselves by raising issues already subject of another petition before the CA.
The cases cited by petitioners did not involve tax delinquency sales and did not require a separate action for possession.

Whether a certificate against forum shopping is required in an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession.

The proper classification of the ex parte petition: Is it a complaint/initiatory pleading or merely a motion incident to the registration proceedings?
Whether the absence of a certificate in the petition constitutes reversible error.

Whether the tax auction sale proceeding is governed by Act No. 3135 or by the provisions of the Local Government Code (Sections 246 to 270).
The impact of this determination on the validity and nature of the writ of possession.

Whether the ex parte petition should, by its nature, be considered summary and ministerial, and if it is incident to the mere transfer of title, as opposed to constituting a judgment on the merits.
Whether the proper remedy for contesting the writ of possession should have been an independent action (e.g., an accion reivindicatoria) rather than an ex parte petition.