Case Summary (G.R. No. L-62619)
Factual Background
IBASCO and TAMPINGCO leased the property under a monthly rental of P1,500.00, with P1,000.00 paid by IBASCO for the portion he occupied and P500.00 paid by TAMPINGCO for the part used by her. They paid the rentals consistently and were unaware that the GARCIAS had mortgaged the property with the BANK, that the mortgage had been foreclosed due to non-payment, and that the redemption period had already expired. After foreclosure, the deputy sheriff acting for Ricardo Cruz served the petitioners on December 1, 1982, together with a copy of a writ of possession ordered by the court authorities. The writ granted the petitioners five days from December 1, 1982 within which to vacate the premises.
Petitioners’ Resort to Certiorari
The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari, asserting that the lower court had abused its discretion in issuing the writ of possession. The Supreme Court initially granted a temporary restraining order and enjoined the sheriff from enforcing the writ. It then required private respondents to comment. After the comment and the reply were received, the Court gave due course to the petition, treated the comment as the answer of the private respondents, and resolved the petition on the pleadings submitted.
The Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners presented three grounds. First, they argued that Act No. 3135 had been impliedly repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 (the House Rental Law). Second, they contended that a writ of possession could be granted only in a land registration case and not in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage. Third, they maintained that their petition was the only adequate remedy.
The Court’s Discussion on Alleged Repeal
On the claim of implied repeal, the Court held there was no inconsistency between Act No. 3135 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. It explained that Act No. 3135 supplied the procedure for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages, while Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 dealt with rent regulation and with grounds for ejectment. The Court acknowledged that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, ejectment could not be justified merely because the property had been sold or mortgaged to another. It then distinguished the situation before it: the petitioners were sought to be evicted not simply because of a transfer to another, but because, as a result of the mortgage, the property had been foreclosed upon pursuant to Act No. 3135, which expressly contemplated the issuance of a writ of possession, subject to the continuing rights of a lessee under the Civil Code.
The Court further ruled that Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 could not apply on the facts. The monthly rental was P1,500.00, which was far above the P300.00 rent regulation limit stated in the decision’s discussion of the statute.
Authority to Issue a Writ of Possession Beyond Land Registration Proceedings
On petitioners’ second argument, the Court rejected the notion that writ of possession was limited to land registration cases. It pointed out that Section 7 of Act No. 3135 provides that the purchaser may petition the court for possession, and that the petition is filed in a manner linked to the registration or cadastral proceedings depending on whether the property is registered. The Court quoted Section 7 and emphasized the statutory condition that the petition shall be filed in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered. It reasoned that the writ of possession had been pursued in the manner required by the statute in the case at bar.
Civil Code Protection of Lessees and the Condition of Registration or Actual Knowledge
Before closing, the Court addressed the substance of the petitioners’ lease protection. It relied on Art. 1648 of the Civil Code, which provides that a lease of real estate may be recorded in the Registry of Property, and that unless recorded, it is not binding upon third persons. The Court stated that, under Art. 1648, the petitioners could have continued in possession as lessees if the lease had been registered or if the existence and duration of the lease had been known to the private respondents. It added that the doctrine required actual knowledge, which the Court treated as equivalent to registration. The Court then found that in the case before it, neither the registration of the lease nor the private respondents’ knowledge of the lease’s existence and
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-62619)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Manuel IBASCO and Edita TAMPINGCO filed a petition for certiorari assailing the issuance and enforcement of a writ of possession by the court authorities.
- The respondents were Hon. Eduardo P. Caguioa, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan Branch VIII, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BANK), and Ricardo Cruz, as ex-officio sheriff.
- The controversy arose after the sheriff served the lessees with a writ of possession ordered by the court authorities.
- The Court granted a temporary restraining order and enjoined the sheriff from enforcing the writ, then later resolved the matter after the filing of comments and a reply treated as the answer of the private respondents.
- The Court ultimately dismissed the petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- IBASCO and TAMPINGCO were the lessees of a residential house at No. 12, Tamaraw Street, Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
- The lease was with the spouses Anastacio Garcia and Asuncion Garcia (the GARCIAS) at a monthly rental of P 1,500.00, with P 1,000.00 paid by petitioner IBASCO and P 500.00 paid by petitioner TAMPINGCO.
- The lessees paid rentals “religiously” and were unaware that the GARCIAS had mortgaged the property to the BANK, that the mortgage had been foreclosed due to non-payment, and that the redemption period had already expired.
- The sheriff served the lessees on December 1, 1982, together with a copy of the writ of possession, granting them five days from that date to vacate.
- The lessees challenged the writ by elevating the case to the Court, claiming abuse of discretion in its issuance.
Core Legal Issues
- The Court framed the sole issue as whether a mortgagee who foreclosed the mortgaged property and purchased it at the foreclosure sale could be granted a writ of possession notwithstanding the presence of a lessee in possession and a lease not yet terminated.
- The Court further addressed the conditions under which the lessee’s continuing possession could defeat or limit the mortgagee’s entitlement to possession.
Statutory Framework Invoked
- The petition required harmonizing the operation of Act 3135 with Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
- The Court considered whether any alleged implied repeal existed between Act 3135 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
- The Court relied on Section 7 of Act 3135, which governs the purchaser’s petition for possession during the redemption period in the context of foreclosure sales under that Act.
- The Court also anchored its protective rule for lessees on Art. 1648 of the Civil Code, which provides for recording of real estate leases and their binding effect on third persons.
Contentions of Petitioners
- Petitioners argued that Act 3135 was impliedly repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
- Petitioners contended that a writ of possession may be granted only in a land registration case, and not in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage.
- Petitioners asserted that their petition for certiorari constituted the only adequate remedy available to them under the circumstances.
- Petitioners also invoked the fact that the premises were in the possession of lessees an