Title
Mascarinas vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 228138
Decision Date
Aug 27, 2020
A property dispute arose over two adjacent lots with conflicting claims; the Supreme Court ordered a survey to ensure accurate enforcement of a writ of possession, relaxing procedural rules to prevent grave injustice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228138)

Antecedents of the Case

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 215, issued a writ of possession favoring BPI Family Savings Bank over Lot 3-30-C-2, covered by TCT No. N-266377. The property, with an area of 206 square meters, was previously under the ownership of Josephine Abila. Upon the sheriff's attempt to execute the writ, Remedios Mascarinas, the occupant, contended that the property is incorrectly associated with Lot 3-30-C-2 and instead belongs to her, specifically Lot 3-30-C-1, which measures 1,552 square meters and is covered by TCT No. T-142901.

Dispute Over Property Ownership

Mascarinas asserted she acquired Lot 3-30-C-1 in 2007, following an auction sale, and had received a writ of possession from the RTC Caloocan in a separate civil case. A confusion exists as both properties were once owned by Abila, causing disputes during the foreclosure process. Various documents, including a sketch plan from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) presented by Mascarinas, contest the bank's claim to the property, while BPI Family contends that its submitted relocation survey accurately identifies its property.

Trial Court Decisions

The RTC dismissed Mascarinas's motion to quash the writ of possession, asserting that the writ only pertained to TCT No. N-266377 and not to her TCT No. T-142901. Subsequent motions filed by Mascarinas seeking clarification and a survey of both lots were denied. This led her to file a motion for extension and then to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).

Court of Appeals Rulings

Mascarinas's motion for extension was denied by the CA, leading her to file for reconsideration asserting her counsel's heavy workload and health issues as justifications for the delay. Nonetheless, the CA found that such reasons did not merit an extension according to the amended Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, emphasizing compliance with the sixty-day period for filing petitions.

Legal Issues Presented

The key legal issues include whether granting the extension for Mascarinas's petition serves the higher interest of substantive justice, and whether seeking a survey is a necessary step to determine the locations of both properties, thereby preventing improper enforcement of the writ of possession.

Ruling on Motion for Extension

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of substantial justice and, despite acknowledging that the CA's initial rulings were grounded in procedural technicalities, stressed the necessity of expanding the rules when adherence would produce grave injustices. The context of this case highlighted that failing to allow the motion could result in Mascarinas losing her property unjustly due to co-occupancy issues related to the similar ownership history of both properties.

Decision on Survey Necessity

The Court determined that a survey of both Lot 3-30-C-1 and Lot

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.