Title
Supreme Court
Sio Tiat King vs. Lim
Case
G.R. No. 185407
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2015
Spouses Calidguid failed to comply with a compromise agreement, leading to property auction; assignee King redeemed it, later seeking possession, but third-party Lims claimed ownership. Writ of possession denied, requiring separate judicial action to resolve ownership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185407)

Background Facts

In Civil Case No. 94-71083, the Spouses Calidguid entered into a Compromise Agreement with the Spouses Jaime Lee. This agreement required the Calidguids to pay P2,520,000.00 to the Lees, which was subsequently approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After the Calidguids failed to fulfill the payment terms, the Lees sought execution, resulting in the issuance of a Writ of Execution. The sheriff levied a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 85561, and Jaime Lee acquired it at a public auction.

Redemption and Subsequent Proceedings

Sio Tiat King redeemed the property on October 30, 1996, securing a Certificate of Redemption as the assignee of the Calidguids. More than eleven years later, King filed a motion for a writ of possession, which was granted by the RTC. This prompted the Sheriff to issue a Notice to Vacate directed at the Calidguids and others claiming rights to the property.

Claim of Ownership and Motion to Quash

In response, the Lim siblings filed a Joint Affidavit of Third Party Claim, asserting they were registered owners of the property under TCT No. 122207. They subsequently moved to quash the writ of execution. The RTC initially scheduled a preliminary conference but then turned over possession of part of the property to King, leading the Lims to file an Extremely Urgent Motion to maintain the status quo.

Legal Actions Taken and Court Resolutions

Following various motions and hearings, including a petition for certiorari filed by the Lims, the RTC ultimately favored King but restricted the execution of the writ pending the resolution of ownership issues. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the RTC's decision, finding that the writ of possession lacked legally necessary grounds due to the existence of conflicting property titles and the proper sequence of legal actions needed to resolve possession conflicts.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA concluded that the writ of possession was improperly issued as the underlying Civil Case had already been executed and satisfied with the Certificate of Redemption. King's legal status as a "successor-in-interest" did not suffice to grant him rights over property when there were competing claims of ownership from the Lims. The CA emphasized due process, asserting that the Lims, being in possession, had legitimate claims that required judicial resolution before any eviction could occur.

Key Legal Principles Addressed

The case elucidated the following legal principles:

  1. Writ of Possession: Properly contingent upon the expiration of redemption rights and exclusively available to the purchaser or redemptioner in possession without adverse claims from third parties.
  2. Successors-in-Interest versus Redemptioners: The distinction between these terms is critical, as certain statutory rights must be legally enacted through appropriate legal means (e.g., ejectment suits) when property claims and ownership disputes arise.
  3. Judicial Process: Actual possession based on

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.