Case Digest (G.R. No. 197797)
Facts:
Heirs of Jose Penaflor, namely: Jose Penaflor, Jr. and Virginia P. Agatep, represented by Jessica P. Agatep v. Heirs of Artemio and Lydia dela Cruz, G.R. No. 197797, August 09, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The dispute centers on a parcel of land at No. 11 Ifugao St., Brgy. Barretto, Olongapo City (the subject property). Nicolasa dela Cruz was the registered owner who, on April 15, 1991, authorized her daughter Carmelita C. Guanga to mortgage the property to Jose R. Penaflor to secure a P112,000 loan. Penaflor conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure, emerged as highest bidder at auction, received a Certificate of Sale (Nov. 21, 1991) and, after the redemption period lapsed, a Final Bill of Sale (Dec. 14, 1992). Penaflor consolidated ownership but Nicolasa continued in possession.
To obtain physical possession, Penaflor filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Olongapo City (Other Case No. 38-0-93). The RTC granted the petition on November 19, 1993; that decision became final. The writ, however, was not enforced immediately because Artemio dela Cruz (Nicolasa’s son and predecessor-in-interest of respondents) filed a separate complaint for annulment of judgment in the same RTC (dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction), and later, in April 1998, an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 4065) against Carmelita in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Artemio supported his ejectment claim with a Miscellaneous Sales Application (filed 1968), earlier deeds of mortgage executed by him (1968, 1973), tax declarations in his name, and a notarized “Waiver and Transfer of Possessory Rights” dated May 3, 1989 executed by Nicolasa (the May 3, 1989 Waiver).
Proceedings to implement the writ resumed years later. On June 27, 2008 the RTC issued an Amended Order and a Writ of Possession; Notices to Vacate were issued in July 2008 and June 18, 2009. Artemio, his wife Lydia, and several siblings and relatives filed motions to quash and a motion to hold implementation in abeyance, asserting they were third parties in actual possession claiming rights adverse to Nicolasa; the RTC denied those motions (orders of Dec. 5, 2008 and Aug. 14, 2009). Respondents (Artemio’s heirs) elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 110392).
The CA, in a Decision dated February 18, 2011, annulled and set aside the writ of possession and notice to vacate, finding respondents (as successors-in-interest of Artemio) were holding the property adversely to Nicolasa; it gave weight to the May 3, 1989 Waiver and the evidence adjudicated in Artemio’s ejectment proceedings (which the Supreme Court had affirmed in Guanga v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 150187). The CA concluded that the proper remedy for the purchaser was an ejectment or reivindicatory action, not enforcement of the ex parte...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in annulling the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate issued by the RTC in favor of petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest?
- Were the documents and rulings relied upon by respondents sufficient to establish that they were third parties actually in possession of the subject property holding it adversely to the judgment obligor so as to defeat the m...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)