THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 185407, June 22, 2015
SIO TIAT KING, Petitioner, v. VICENTE G. LIM, MICHAEL GEORGE O. LIM, MATHEW VINCENT O. LIM, MEL PATRICK O. LIM, MOISES FRANCIS W. LIM, MARVIN JOHN W. LIM, AND SAARSTAHL PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated April 28, 2008 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Manila in Civil Case No. 94-71083 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Writ of Possession issued on January 25, 2008 is QUASHED, without prejudice to any separate action which private respondent Sio Tiat King may file against all parties concerned for the enforcement of whatever right he may have over the subject property.The CA decision granted the petition filed by the Lims for the following reasons:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SO ORDERED.22cralawlawlibrary
Firstly, Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is not applicable. The second paragraph of said rule provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryHis motion for reconsideration24 having been denied by the CA in a Resolution25 dated November 13, 2008, King filed the present petition.26"Upon expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor."The above-rule contemplates two situations wherein a writ of possession may issue: (1) only upon the expiration of the period of redemption and no such redemption having been made[;] and (2) only to a purchaser or redemptioner in the execution sale.
In relation thereto, Sec. 27 of the same Rule enumerates the persons who are entitled to exercise the right of redemption over a property sold on execution, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary"Sec. 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. - Real property sold as provided in the last preceding section, or any part thereof sold separately, may be redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the following persons:The "successor-in-interest" contemplated under Sec. 27 includes a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred his right of redemption, or one to whom he has conveyed his interests in the property for purposes of redemption, or one who succeeds to his property by operation of law, or a person with a joint interest in the property, or his spouse or heirs. Hence, King, by virtue of a Deed of Assignment of Real Property and Right of Redemption, is included within the term "successor in interest."
(a) The judgment obligor, or his successor-in-interest in the whole or any part of the property;
(b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold. Such redeeming creditor is termed as redemptioner."
In this case, not only was there a redemption made by King within the redemption period but moreover, the writ of possession was issued not to a purchaser or redemptioner but to King himself, a successor-in-interest of Spouses Calidguid, the judgment obligors. Hence, it was no longer a ministerial duty of respondent Judge to issue the writ of possession.
Secondly, contrary to the position of respondent Judge and the contending parties, the writ of possession applied for by King cannot be deemed to be a continuation of the execution proceedings in Civil Case No. 94-71083 which had been terminated long ago after the issuance of the Certificate of Redemption and the satisfaction of the claims of the judgment creditors [Spouses Lee], x x x
x x x x
It must be noted that King, by virtue of a Deed of Assignment of Real Property and Right of Redemption, redeemed the property in question as an "assignee" of Sps. Calidguid, the judgment debtors in Civil Case No. 94-71083, and as such is deemed subrogated to the rights and obligations of the latter, x x x In this case, full ownership of the subject property was restored to the judgment debtors, Spouses Calidguid, who were substituted by King, after the redemption made by the latter as evidenced by the Certificate of Redemption, which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryx x x xThirdly, it is improper to issue a writ of possession when there has been a redemption made by the judgment debtor, as in this case, considering that it would be very difficult to implement the same. The dispositive portion of the Order dated January 22, 2008 granting the Writ of Possession reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREAS, by virtue of a Deed of Assignment of Real Property and Right of Redemption, dated October 30, 1996, the Assignee, [King], now offers to redeem the property from the highest bidder, [Jaime], the sum of PHP2,941,478.53 in Equitable Banking Corporation Cashier Check No. 0066-724519 in full satisfaction of the bid price including all interests, rights, shares titles, claims and participation of [Jaime] relative to the aforesaid parcel of land covered by TCT No. 85561, subject matter of Civil Case No. 94-71083 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 04, Manila;
x x x x
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the undersigned hereby executed this Certificate of Redemption and hereby restores the [Spouses Calidguid], now being substituted by the Assignee, [King], full ownership of the above-mentioned levied and sold property.
x x x x"WHEREFORE, finding the motion to be meritorious, the same is hereby granted. As prayed for, let a writ of possession be issued directing the Sheriff of this Court to place movant [King] in actual physical possession of the levied property covered by [TCT] No. 85561 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and to eject therefrom [Spouses Calidguid] their agents and such other persons claiming rights under them."while the Notice to Vacate reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThis Court could hardly imagine how respondent Sheriff could possibly implement the aforequoted Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate by placing King in actual physical possession of the subject property and at the same time evicting therefrom Spouses Calidguid, their agents and all other persons claiming rights under them when King himself is one of the persons claiming rights under Spouses Calidguid, as he stepped into the shoes of the latter by virtue of a Deed of Assignment of Real Property and Right of Redemption.
"TO: Sps. Evelyn P. Calidguid & Victoriano Calidguid, their agents and ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM 109 P. Florentino St., cor. Araneta Ave., SMH, Quezon City
Greetings:
You are hereby notified by virtue of the Writ of Possession xxx being served upon you and all other persons claiming rights upon you, DEMAND is hereby made upon you and all other persons claiming rights upon you to VACATE the premises xxx covered by TCT No. 85561 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Quezon City, within five (5) days from receipt of this Notice.
x x x x"
xxxx
Fourthly, even assuming that King is legally entitled to a writ of possession, the mere issuance of such writ cannot summarily evict [the Lims] from the subject property since they are occupants therein under claim of ownership. If King had been unlawfully deprived of possession of the subject property, he may file an independent action against [the Lims]. He cannot enforce his claim of possession and ownership in the case terminated long ago.23 (Citations omitted and emphases in the original)
Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given. x x x.King acquired his right over the property with TCT No. 85561 from the Spouses Calidguid when their right to redeem the property was assigned to him and subsequently, when redemption was made; whereas the Lims' claim of ownership is based on TCT No. 122207 registered in their names. This goes to show that the Lims hold the property adversely to the judgment obligor, Spouses Calidguid.
xxx The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor. (Emphasis ours)
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
While King and the Lims are contending for the possession and ownership of the same property, which has been the subject of levy and execution in Civil Case No. 94-71083, an ejectment suit should have been filed by King before the Lims could be evicted from the property. This is due to the existence of their ostensibly conflicting titles coupled with the Lims' actual possession over the property. "One who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The 'judicial process' could mean no less than an ejectment suit or a reivindicatory action, in which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated."29
King took a procedural shortcut when he applied for the issuance of a writ of possession instead of filing a suit to recover possession of the property against the Lims. Besides, as the CA had espoused, the issuance of the writ of possession produced a peculiar situation in which the writ sought by King was directed against himself as the assignee of the judgment debtors.
The CA is also correct when it held that King cannot enforce his claim of possession and ownership in a case terminated long ago,30 more so that the possession is with the Lims, who are considered as strangers in Civil Case No. 94-71083. As can be readily gleaned from the records, the judgment in the aforecited case has already been executed and satisfied. In their Comment31 to the petition before the CA, the Spouses Lee manifested that the issuance of the Certificate of Redemption confirmed that their claims as judgment creditors had been fully satisfied.32
As regards King's submission that the TCT of the Lims was fictitiously issued, the Court holds that this is not the proper forum to resolve issues concerning ownership of the disputed property. Matters regarding its ownership should be ventilated in a separate proceeding, as this case is limited to the propriety of the issuance of a writ of possession following redemption.33
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 22, 2008 and the Resolution dated November 13, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103391 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr., and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 146-148.
2 Issued by Judge Vetino E. Reyes; id.
3 Id. at 149.
4 Id. at 150-151.
5 Id: at 152-153.
6 Issued by Presiding Judge Socorro B. Inting; id. at 186-187.
7 Id. at 188.
8 Id. at 189.
9 Id. at 190-193.
10 Id. at 194-196.
11 Id. at 197-199.
12 Id. at 200.
13 Id. at 65-127.
14 Id. at 91.
15 Id. at 347.
16 Id. at 277-279.
17 Id. at 262-265.
18 Id. at 281-282.
19 Id. at 282.
20 Id. at 411-412.
21 Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara- Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia concurring; id. at 43-61.
22 Id. at 60.
23 Id. at 51-57.
24 Id. at 466-477.
25 Id. at 63-64.
26 Id. at 3-40.
27 Id. at 33-34.
28Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending Investors Corp., 647 Phil. 494, 504 (2010).
29 Id.
30Rollo, p. 57.
31 Id. at 283-287.
32 Id. at 48.
33Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc., 552 Phil. 602, 619 (2007).