G.R. No. 228138 - Mascarinas vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.

In LRC Case No. Q-19021 (04), the Regional Trial Court-Quezon City, Branch 215 issued a writ of possession in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., covering Lot 3-30-C-2 with a title (TCT No. N-266377) and an area of 206 square meters.
The lot in question was previously associated with another title (TCT No. N-221465) in the name of mortgagor Josephine Abila, thus establishing a history of ownership under different technical descriptions.

Petitioner Remedios M. Mascariñas asserted that the lot subject to the writ (Lot 3-30-C-2) is not her property but actually belongs to her as Lot 3-30-C-1, which measures 1,552 square meters, is situated in Caloocan City, and is covered by TCT No. T-142901.
She contended that she purchased her lot at an auction sale in 2007 and that the confusion arose because both properties were once owned by Josephine Abila and are located along the boundaries of Quezon City and Caloocan City.

The bank relied on a relocation survey prepared by RC Tollo Surveying Services (submitted in 2012) which precisely identified the metes and bounds of Lot 3-30-C-2, thus supporting its claim.
In contrast, the petitioner presented a sketch plan issued and approved by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) for her Lot 3-30-C-1. She argued that the bank’s unsigned survey was insufficient to override her LRA-approved sketch plan.

The petitioner moved to quash the writ of possession and requested clarification that the order should not apply to her property; however, the Regional Trial Court denied this motion.
She further sought a survey of both lots to ascertain their exact boundaries—an effort aimed at preventing the mistaken enforcement of the writ on her property—but this motion was also denied by the trial court.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days to file her petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, citing heavy workload, her counsel's failing health, and long travel between San Pedro, Laguna and Quezon City.

The Court of Appeals, via its Resolution dated July 13, 2016, denied her motion for extension, asserting that the strict sixty-day reglementary period must apply, and noted that technical reasons like “pressure of work” were generally insufficient.
Later, petitioner filed a motion to admit the petition for certiorari, asserting that the extension was warranted and had been sought before receiving the denial.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of Appeals (Resolution dated November 4, 2016).

Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that a strict application of the sixty-day rule would cause irreparable damage to her right to property, and that the survey of both disputed lots is necessary to determine the correct property subject to the writ.
The bank, on the other hand, opposed the petition, stressing the importance of upholding the established reglementary period to avoid misuse of procedural extensions under Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.

Whether granting the petitioner’s motion for a one-time extension of fifteen (15) days to file her petition for certiorari—and subsequently admitting that petition—serves the higher interest of substantial justice despite the strict application of the sixty-day reglementary rule.

Whether ordering a survey of both the petitioner’s Lot 3-30-C-1 and the bank’s Lot 3-30-C-2 is a necessary and indispensable measure to clearly ascertain their respective boundaries, thereby preventing the erroneous enforcement of the writ of possession on the wrong property.