G.R. No. 209672-74 - Sia vs. Arcenas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209672-74)

Factual Background

Due to real property tax delinquencies of Panay Railways, Incorporated (PRI) for 1992 to 1996, the City Treasurer of Roxas City conducted an auction of the subject lots in which Edmund Sia emerged as the highest bidder and received a Certificate of Sale dated December 20, 1996. The City Treasurer refused to issue a Final Bill of Sale after the one-year redemption period. Then-Mayor Juliano Alba issued Executive Order No. 08-97 nullifying the auction sale. Sia sought judicial relief by filing a petition for annulment of EO 08-97, mandamus, and damages before RTC Roxas City, Branch 17 (SCA No. V-7075), seeking an order directing the City Treasurer to issue the Final Bill of Sale.

Trial Court Judgment and Appellate History

The RTC, Branch 17, rendered a Decision dated March 21, 2001 declaring the auction sale valid and ordering the City Treasurer to issue the Final Bill of Sale in favor of Sia. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Panay Railways, Inc. assailed the affirmation to the Supreme Court but its petition was dismissed as filed beyond the reglementary period and for failure to pay fees, rendering the judgment final and executory on October 23, 2007.

Execution Proceedings Before RTC Branch 15

Sia moved for execution before RTC Roxas City, Branch 15 and obtained a Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008 commanding compliance with the final judgment. The City Treasurer refused to issue the Final Bill of Sale, asserting outstanding delinquent real property taxes amounting to PHP 2,394,526.44 that accrued during the pendency of the case. Sia filed a Motion for Order Divesting PRI of title and vesting title to him, which RTC Br. 15 granted by Order dated June 10, 2008, and held that Sia could not be held liable for taxes prior to issuance of the Final Bill of Sale. Thereafter, Sia sought delivery of possession of the subject lots. The court issued a Writ of Possession dated June 19, 2009 and a Writ of Demolition dated August 28, 2009.

Respondents’ Motion to Quash and RTC Branch 15 Rulings

Occupants of the lots who were lessees of PRI, namely the respondents, moved to quash the writs on grounds that the underlying action, being a petition for mandamus, prohibited issuance of a writ of possession and that execution of a mandamus judgment is governed by special-execution rules under Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65. RTC Br. 15 denied the motion to quash in an Order dated September 18, 2009 and denied reconsideration on October 15, 2009, reasoning that tax delinquency sale at public auction is akin to extrajudicial foreclosure and justified issuance of writs of possession and demolition to effectuate transfer of possession.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated January 31, 2013, set aside RTC Br. 15’s Writ of Possession and Writ of Demolition and directed RTC Br. 15 to enforce with dispatch the Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008 in accordance with Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65. The CA concluded that the March 21, 2001 judgment in SCA No. V-7075 was primarily a judgment ordering issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the City Treasurer to perform a ministerial duty under Section 262 of Republic Act No. 7160, and that execution of such a special judgment is limited to directing compliance and, in case of disobedience, punishing the disobedient party for contempt. The CA held that RTC Br. 15 exceeded its authority when it issued writs of possession and demolition that went beyond the dispositive terms of the mandamus judgment.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The dispositive issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly declared the Writ of Possession dated June 19, 2009 and the Writ of Demolition dated August 28, 2009 null and void and whether the CA correctly directed RTC Br. 15 to enforce the Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008 in accordance with Section 11, Rule 39 and Section 9, Rule 65.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Decision dated January 31, 2013 and the Resolution dated August 29, 2013 of the Court of Appeals.

Legal Basis of the Court’s Reasoning

The Court analyzed the nature of the judgment in SCA No. V-7075 and determined that it ordered the performance of a ministerial duty by the City Treasurer under Section 262 of Republic Act No. 7160, namely, the execution of a deed conveying the property to the purchaser free of the lien for delinquent tax upon failure of redemption. The Court reiterated the established definition of a writ of mandamus as a command to compel performance of a ministerial act and observed that a judgment ordering such performance constitutes a special judgment for purposes of execution. The Court invoked Section 11, Rule 39, which governs execution of special judgments, and Section 9, Rule 65, which prescribes service and enforcement of judgments in mandamus proceedings, and concluded that the proper method of enforcing such a judgment is to serve the judgment upon the officer concerned and, upon disobedience, to punish the officer for contempt rather than to issue ordinary writs of execution for delivery of property.

Application to the Case Facts

The Court found that the City Treasurer refused to comply with the final judgment and the Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008. The Court held that RTC Br. 15 should have enforced the judgment by initiating contempt proceedings against the City Treasurer in order to secure obedience to the mandamus judgment. Instead, RTC Br. 15 granted motions that led to issuance of a Writ of Possession and a Writ of Demolition, instruments traditionally employed to execute judgments ordering delivery of possession of land under circumstances such as registration proceedings, judicial foreclosure, extrajudicial foreclosure, and execution sales, and in execution of judgments that direct the delivery or restitution of real property under Section 10, Rule 39.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209672-74)

Parties and Posture

Edmund Sia is the petitioner who purchased at public auction two parcels described as Lot 145-A and Lot No. 1839-pt measuring 7,652 and 8,381 square meters respectively.
Wilfredo Arcenas, Fernando Lopez, and Pablo Rafanan are the respondents who occupied the subject lots as lessees of Panay Railways, Incorporated.
The petition assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 31, 2013 and Resolution dated August 29, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 04598, 04607, and 04608 which set aside writs issued by the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 15.
The primary relief sought by Edmund Sia is the affirmation of writs of possession and demolition issued in his favor and the vesting of possession of the subject lots.

Key Facts

The subject lots were sold at public auction for real property tax delinquencies of Panay Railways, Incorporated covering the years 1992 to 1996.
A Certificate of Sale in favor of Edmund Sia was issued on December 20, 1996.
Then-Mayor Juliano Alba issued Executive Order No. 08-97 nullifying the auction sale.
Edmund Sia filed a petition for annulment of EO 08-97, mandamus, and damages against municipal officers and Panay Railways, Incorporated seeking a Final Bill of Sale.
The City Treasurer refused to issue the Final Bill of Sale and later asserted petitioner's obligation to pay outstanding taxes of PHP 2,394,526.44 accrued during the pendency of the case.
The subject lots were continuously occupied by third parties including the respondents at the time writs were pursued.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, rendered judgment on March 21, 2001 declaring the auction valid and ordering the City Treasurer to issue the Final Bill of Sale to Edmund Sia.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Branch 17 decision but the appealed certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied for being filed beyond the reglementary period and for unpaid fees.
The judgment became final and executory on October 23, 2007, after which Edmund Sia moved for execution and secured a Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008.
The City Treasurer refused compliance, prompting Edmund Sia to file a motion for divestment of title, which RTC Branch 15 granted in an Order dated June 10, 2008.
Edmund Sia obtained a Writ of Possession dated June 19, 2009 and a Writ of Demolition dated August 28, 2009 from RTC Branch 15 to recover possession of the subject lots.
The respondents moved to quash the writs and filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which were consolidated.

Trial Court Rulings

RTC Branch 17 rendered the original judgment on March 21, 2001 ordering issuance of the Final Bill of Sale in favor of Edmund Sia.
RTC Branch 15 granted the motion divesting Panay Railways, Incorporated of title and ordered that Edmund Sia could not be held liable for real property taxes prior to issuance of the Final Bill of Sale.
RTC Branch 15 denied the respondents' urgent motions to quash the writs of possession and demolition in Orders dated September 18, 2009 and October 15, 2009.

Court of Appeals Dec