G.R. No. L-24358 - Guevara vs. Ramos

The case arose from a final judgment for damages rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City, Branch IV) in Civil Case No. Q-2171 (Bernabe Flores, et al. vs. Petra Evangelista, et al.), where the negligence of the deceased David Guevara caused the death and injury of several persons.
The judgment creditors, arising from this decision, caused the levy on execution of a parcel of land situated at Rizal Street, Barrio Bayanbayanan, Marikina, Rizal. The property was specifically described with its boundaries, an area of approximately 439.37 square meters, and tax declaration details.

Located on Rizal Street, Barrio of Bayanbayanan, Marikina, Rizal.
Bounded on the North by the property of Natalia Gregorio; on the South by a Callejon; on the East by Rizal St.; and on the West by Marikina River.
With an assessed value of P880.00 for the land and P1,800.00 for the improvements, totaling P2,680.00.
The tax declaration covering the parcel was numbered 10252.

For taxation purposes, the property was declared in the names of the judgment debtors—Petra Evangelista and her children (Nita, Priscilla, Ernesto, Amalia, and Carmen Guevara).

The provincial sheriff of Rizal scheduled an auction sale of the property on February 25, 1963.
Prior to the sale, the brothers and sisters of the deceased David Guevara, together with the judgment debtors, sought to block the sale by staking third-party claims, asserting their rights by way of inheritance over a ten‑eleventh portion of the land and one‑half of the house’s value.
Despite the third-party claims, an indemnity bond was posted by Bernabe Flores, one of the judgment creditors, and the sale proceeded, with Flores emerging as the successful bidder.
Immediately after the sale, Bernabe Flores assigned his purchasing rights to Maximo Calalang, who was the judgment creditors’ counsel.
The judgment debtors failed to redeem the property within the one‑year redemption period, after which the provincial sheriff executed an “Officer’s Deed of Absolute Sale” dated January 4, 1965.

Following the execution sale, Bernabe Flores moved in the lower court for a writ of possession directing the judgment debtors “to vacate the above-described property or relinquish possession” to him, his heirs, representatives, and assigns.
The judgment debtors opposed this writ by contending that the parcel of land was already possessed by the third-party claimants who had filed their ownership claim and initiated Civil Case No. 7720 (Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch X) to vindicate their inheritance rights.
The lower court, however, overruled the opposition and granted the writ of possession, simultaneously ordering the provincial sheriff to effectuate the writ.
The sheriff's efforts were thwarted by the resistance of the third-party claimants who had taken possession of the property.
On March 23, 1965, the lower court issued an order directing the third-party claimants to vacate the premises by March 31, 1965, threatening contempt for noncompliance.
Soon thereafter, the judgment debtors, along with the third-party claimants, approached the Supreme Court through a petition for prohibition with a preliminary injunction aimed at preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession.

On March 31, 1965, the Supreme Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction, thereby enjoining the respondents from enforcing the lower court’s order pending further consideration.
The central matter was determining whether the third-party claimants’ assertion of ownership over a portion of the land, acquired through inheritance claims, could defeat the purchaser’s right to possession after the one-year statutory redemption period, as provided under Section 35 of Rule 39.

Whether the third-party claimants’ assertion of ownership—arising from their inheritance claims—can defeat the purchaser’s right to possession after the expiration of the one‑year redemption period.
Whether the operation of Section 35 of Rule 39, which entitles the purchaser (or his assignee) to conveyance and possession once no redemption is made within twelve months, applies when the property is partially claimed by heirs of the judgment debtor.
Whether it is necessary to conduct a hearing to determine the nature and merits of the adverse possession claim of the third-party claimants, given that they were not in possession at the time of the execution sale.