Case Digest (G.R. No. 195445)
Facts:
Angelina De Guzman, Gilbert De Guzman, Virgilio De Guzman, Jr., and Anthony De Guzman v. Gloria A. Chico, G.R. No. 195445, December 07, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns a parcel at 7-A 32 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City formerly covered by TCT No. 164900 and registered in the name of the De Guzman petitioners. On May 24, 2006 the City Government of Makati sold the property at a public auction of tax-delinquent properties (pursuant to the Local Government Code). Gloria A. Chico was the winning bidder; a Certificate of Sale issued in her favor. The petitioners failed to redeem within the one-year statutory redemption period.
On July 12, 2007 Chico filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 62, an application for a new certificate of title under Section 75 in relation to Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (LRC Case No. M-4992). After hearing, on December 28, 2007 the RTC ordered title consolidated and transferred to Chico; the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 164900 and issued TCT No. T-224923 in her name. A subsequent motion for issuance of a writ of possession in that registration proceeding was not set for hearing and hence denied for procedural reasons.
On January 14, 2009 Chico filed an ex parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession (LRC Case No. M-5188), which was raffled to RTC Branch 59. On April 1, 2009 Branch 59 granted the ex parte petition; the writ was issued on August 7, 2009. On August 28, 2009 the petitioners moved to cite Chico in contempt and to nullify the proceedings, alleging a defective/false verification and a missing/false certification against forum shopping. Chico opposed, contending that an ex parte petition for a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading and thus does not require a Section 5, Rule 7 certification; she further denied forum shopping.
RTC Branch 59 denied the petitioners' motion on January 19, 2010 (and denied reconsideration on April 19, 2010), ruling the ex parte petition was not an initiatory pleading and the certification requirement therefore inapplicable. The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114103, asserting grave abuse of discretion. On January 31, 2011 the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC orders, holding that (a) there was no forum shopping because the writ of possession is ministerial/summary and an incident of title transfer, and (b) a certification against forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings.
The petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court by ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a certification against forum shopping under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure required in an ex parte petition or motion for the issuance of a writ of possession?
- Was the issuance of the writ of possession to the winning bidder in a tax delinquency sale proper, or should the purchaser have pursued an accion reivindicatoria or some othe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)