Facts of the Case
The petitioners, Spouses Reyes, defaulted on a loan secured by a real estate mortgage. Consequently, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at a public auction to the bank, EIBI. The property was later purchased by the respondents, Spouses Chung, who then acquired the title.
When the Spouses Reyes refused to vacate the property, the Spouses Chung first filed a Complaint for Ejectment, which was dismissed. They then filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under Act No. 3135. The RTC granted the writ and later issued a Break Open Order to enforce it when the petitioners continued to refuse compliance.
Issues
- Did the respondents commit forum shopping by filing both an ejectment complaint and a petition for a writ of possession?
- Are subsequent purchasers of a foreclosed property, like the respondents, entitled to a Writ of Possession under Act No. 3135?
- Was the issuance of the Writ of Possession and the subsequent Break Open Order proper?
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents.
The Court found no forum shopping occurred. It upheld the respondents’ right to the property and affirmed that the writ of possession was executed properly. The decision of the Quezon City RTC, which granted the “Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Possession,” was upheld.
Key Legal Principles (Jurisprudence)
- Right of Successors-in-Interest to Possession: Subsequent purchasers of a foreclosed property are considered successors-in-interest to the foreclosing creditor and have the right to apply for a Writ of Possession.
- Nature of the Writ of Possession: The issuance of a writ of possession after a valid foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court once the necessary conditions are met.
- No Forum Shopping: Filing an ejectment case and a petition for a writ of possession under Act No. 3135 do not constitute forum shopping, as the two actions are not substantially similar.
- Procedural Caveat: While the writ was upheld, the Court noted that its issuance should ideally follow a hearing to determine the status of possession, suggesting the RTC erred by issuing it ex parte without such a hearing.
Sample Q&A
Question: Spouses B purchased a property from a bank that had been extrajudicially foreclosed. The original owners, Spouses A, refused to leave. Spouses B filed an unlawful detainer case (which was dismissed) and then an Ex-Parte Petition for a Writ of Possession. Spouses A claim this is forum shopping. Are Spouses A correct, and are Spouses B entitled to immediate possession?
Answer: No, Spouses B did not commit forum shopping. The Supreme Court has established that an ordinary ejectment case and a petition for a writ of possession are not substantially similar actions.
Yes, Spouses B are entitled to the Writ of Possession. As the subsequent purchasers, they are successors-in-interest of the foreclosing creditor. Under Act No. 3135, the court’s issuance of the writ is ministerial once ownership has been established.
SpousesReyesVsChung #GR228112 #PhilippineLaw #SupremeCourtPH #Jurisprudence #WritOfPossession #ForumShopping #Act3135 #Foreclosure #RealEstateLawPH #PropertyLaw #CivilLaw #RemedialLaw #CaseDigest #CaseBrief #LawStudentPH #PhilippineLawyers #LegalPH #KnowYourRightsPH
Leave a Reply