G.R. No. 272689 - Fei Hua Fice and Leasing Service vs. Edilberto CastaAeda

Fei Hua Finance and Leasing Service (Fei Hua), a lending investor, extended a credit facility worth PHP 9,900,000.00 to Goldland Properties and Development Corporation (Goldland).
As security, Goldland executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over 60 parking spaces in Porto Vita Condominium, Cubao, Quezon City, covered by individual Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) in Goldland's name.
One parking slot (subject property), covered by CCT No. 004-2011006807, was allegedly sold by Goldland to respondent Edilberto CastaAeda before the mortgage to Fei Hua.
The mortgage allowed Fei Hua to foreclose either judicially or extrajudicially upon Goldland's default.

Goldland defaulted, with outstanding obligations ballooning to PHP 23,700,000.00 by June 23, 2017.
Fei Hua filed an amended petition for extrajudicial foreclosure; a public auction was held, where Fei Hua was the highest bidder.
A Certificate of Sale was issued to Fei Hua on February 23, 2018, and after the redemption period lapsed, Fei Hua consolidated ownership, leading to cancellation of the original CCT and issuance of a new one in Fei Hua's name.
Fei Hua filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Writ of Possession on February 15, 2022, which the RTC granted on June 27, 2022; the writ was implemented and satisfied by September 2022.

On September 9, 2022, CastaAeda filed a Motion to Recall Writ of Possession, claiming ownership of the subject parking slot.
Evidence included Reservation Agreement and Acknowledgment (both dated September 28, 2013) proving full payment of PHP 700,000.00.
On September 12, 2018, Goldland executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with recitals affirming the parking space was free of liens except condominium restrictions.
CastaAeda took possession of the parking space on August 12, 2017, used it, and paid association dues and realty taxes.
Despite full payment, Goldland delayed transferring the title; CastaAeda was unexpectedly notified of the writ and order to vacate in 2022.

The RTC denied CastaAeda's motion to recall the writ as moot and academic, stating the writ had already been served and satisfied.
The court held that CastaAeda's possession stemmed from his status as successor or transferee of Goldland; hence, not adverse possession.
The RTC relied on China Banking Corp. v. Spouses Lozada, ruling non-adverse possession excludes recall of possession writ.

The CA reversed the RTC, setting aside the orders and excluding the subject parking space from the writ of possession's effect.
The CA relied on Spouses Rosario v. GSIS, modifying the rule on transferees/adverse possession, protecting purchasers in actual possession.
The CA recognized CastaAeda as a third party possessing adverse to Fei Hua, so the writ of possession could not be enforced against him.
Fei Hua failed to dispute CastaAeda's prior purchase and possession claims.

Fei Hua challenged the CA's ruling, arguing the RTC orders were final and thus should be appealed via ordinary appeal, not certiorari.
Fei Hua claimed the motion to recall writ was moot and academic due to writ satisfaction.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the implementation of the writ of possession did not render CastaAeda's motion to recall the writ moot and academic.
Whether CastaAeda properly invoked the remedy of a Rule 65 petition under the circumstances.
Whether CastaAeda is a third party holding the subject property adversely to Goldland, thereby justifying exclusion from enforcement of the writ of possession.