G.R. No. 185407 - Sio Tiat King vs. Lim

Spouses Victoriano and Evelyn Calidguid (Spouses Calidguid) executed a Compromise Agreement with Spouses Jaime Lee and Lim Dechu (collectively, Spouses Lee) in Civil Case No. 94-71083, binding the former to pay P2,520,000.00.
The agreement was approved by the RTC of Manila, Branch 4, on April 24, 1995, but the Calidguids failed to comply with its terms.

Due to non-compliance, Spouses Lee availed the execution remedy, prompting the issuance of a Writ of Execution on August 2, 1995.
The property of the Spouses Calidguid, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 85561, was levied and subsequently sold at public auction, where Jaime, acting as the highest bidder, was issued a Certificate of Sale.

Sio Tiat King, as an assignee of the Calidguids, redeemed the subject property on October 30, 1996, well within the one-year right of redemption period.
Following the redemption, the sheriff issued a Certificate of Redemption, thereby restoring full ownership to the judgment debtors, with King substituting in their stead as per the deed of assignment.

More than 11 years later, King filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession to enforce possession of the subject property.
The RTC granted this motion on January 22, 2008, and issued a Writ of Possession on January 25, 2008.
Sheriff Cesar Javier served a Notice to Vacate address to the Spouses Calidguid, their agents, and other persons claiming rights at 109 P. Florentino Street corner Araneta Avenue, Sto. Domingo, Quezon City.

On February 19, 2008, Michael George O. Lim, Mathew Vincent O. Lim, Mel Patrick O. Lim, Moises Francis W. Lim, and Marvin John W. Lim (collectively, the Lims) filed a Joint Affidavit of Third Party Claim, asserting that they are the registered owners of the property under TCT No. 122207.
The Lims also filed an Entry of Appearance along with a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution on February 21, 2008.
An Extremely Urgent Motion to Issue a Status Quo Ante Order was later filed by the Lims after part of the property was physically turned over to King on March 18, 2008, which the RTC temporarily granted until April 11, 2008.
The RTC subsequently issued an Order on April 28, 2008, denying the Lims’ motion to quash and ruling in favor of the earlier TCT of the Calidguids over the Lims’ TCT.

The Lims filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the RTC’s part for ousting them without a separate ownership action.
The CA admitted the Lims’ Supplemental Petition on May 28, 2008, issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the rights of both parties, and later annulled the RTC Order issuing the writ of possession on July 22, 2008.
In its decision, the CA clarified that the writ of possession provision under Section 33, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court applied only to a purchaser or redemptioner after expiration of the right of redemption, and not to a successor-in-interest.

King, not satisfied with the CA ruling, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on November 13, 2008.
He then filed the present petition, which was also ultimately denied by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2015.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, thereby quashing the writ of possession and reinforcing that any claim by King must be pursued in a separate judicial action.

Whether the Lims may be evicted from the subject property by the writ of possession issued in favor of King.

Whether King, as a successor-in-interest of the judgment debtor and assignee, qualifies as a "redemptioner" entitled to a writ of possession under Section 33, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
Whether the issuance of the writ of possession, in light of King’s role as assignee and the actual adverse possession by the Lims, complies with the due process requirements.
Whether the writ of possession can be seen as a proper continuation of the execution proceedings in a case that had been terminated after satisfaction of the judgment creditors’ claims.