SECOND DIVISION.
.
RODOLFO
ALARILLA,
SR., ROSARIO G. ALARILLA,RODOLFO G. ALARILLA,
JR., RODERICK G. ALARILLA,RAINIER G. ALARILLA,
RANDY G. ALARILLA,MA. ROSELLE G.
ALARILLA-PARAYNOAND ALEJANDRO
PARAYNO,
JR.,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
144697
December 10, 2003
-versus-
REYNALDO C.
OCAMPO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a Petition for
Review on
Certiorari of the
decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53559 affirming the Orders of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4, dated February 8, 1996
and
May 20, 1996 in LRC Cad. Record No. 291.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Antecedents
Spouses Isidro de Guzman
and Andrea E. Enriquez were the owners in fee simple of a parcel of
land,
with an area of 128.40 square meters located in Fabie Street, Pedro
Gil,
Paco, Manila, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 94754 of
the Register of Deeds of Manila. The Spouses De Guzman thereafter
constructed
a house thereon, with postal address at No. 1526 1st Street, Fabie
Estate,
Pedro Gil, Paco, Manila.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 17, 1982, Andrea
died intestate and was survived by Isidro and their daughter Rosario de
Guzman, married to Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. They executed a real estate
mortgage
over the property in favor of Spouses Reynaldo C. Ocampo and Josephine
C. Llave as security for the payment of their loan. On July 15, 1995,
Isidro
de Guzman died intestate and was survived by Rosario de Guzman and her
children by Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. When the mortgagors-debtors failed to
pay the loan despite demands, the Spouses Ocampo filed a petition for
the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage with the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, who was also the
Ex-Officio
City Sheriff. The property was sold at public auction on July 13, 1994
with the Spouses Ocampo as the highest bidder for P515,430.76. The
Ex-Officio
Sheriff executed a certificate of sale over the property also on the
said
date. The certificate of sale was registered with the Office of the
City
Register of Deeds on September 2, 1994. Upon the failure to redeem the
property, the Spouses Ocampo executed an affidavit of consolidation of
title. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224439 was issued to and under
their names on October 3, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 17, 1995,
Spouses Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. and their children: Spouses Alejandro
Parayno,
Jr. and Ma. Roselle Alarilla, Rodolfo Alarilla, Jr., Roderick G.
Alarilla,
Rainier Alarilla and Randy Alarilla filed a complaint against the
Spouses
Ocampo and the Ex-Officio Sheriff with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila.
The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-75769, alleged inter alia
that -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) by
virtue
of the Family Code of the Philippines, the property sold at public
auction
was constituted as a family home;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Isidro de
Guzman
failed to liquidate the family home after the death of Andrea as
required
by the Family Code of the Philippines, which rendered the real estate
mortgage
executed in favor of the Spouses Ocampo null and void;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) upon the demise
of Isidro de Guzman on July 15, 1995, the plaintiffs depended on their
parents, the Spouses Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. for support;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) the plaintiffs
offered to redeem the property for P356,427.91 to the Spouses Reynaldo
Ocampo before the lapse of the one-year redemption period, but the
latter
refused to accept the same;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) the Sheriff
sold
the property for an amount in excess of P401,162.96, the correct amount
owed the plaintiffs, thus rendering the sale null and void; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(f) the plaintiffs
offered
to redeem the property for the correct amount due on September 1, 1995,
but the defendants refused to accept the same; hence, the period for
redemption
had not yet expired.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The plaintiffs prayed
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
sheriff
from implementing the writ of possession issued by the RTC, Branch 4.
The
plaintiffs, thus, prayed that after due proceedings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
and based on the foregoing premises, plaintiffs most respectfully pray
that:
A. Judgment be
rendered
declaring the Certificate of Sale and any Deed for that matter that is
subsequently issued as null and void;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. The defendants be
ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos,
Philippine currency, plus the additional sum of P45,000.00 to answer
for
exemplary damage and actual expenses incurred in maintaining the suit,
respectively;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. In said
judgment,
an order be issued making the injunction earlier issued permanent;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D. Declaring also
that
the Family Home comprised of Lot 21 and plaintiffs' residence thereat
be
declared free from any encumbrances, foreclosure sale, Certificate of
Sale
and Definite Deed of Sale.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 27, 1995,
Reynaldo Ocampo filed a petition for a writ of possession in LRC Cad.
No.
291 with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4. There was no
opposition
to the petition. The petitioner adduced evidence ex-parte in support
thereof
and on February 8, 1996, the court issued an order granting the
petition
and a writ of possession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint praying that after due proceedings, judgment be
rendered
in their favor, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, and
foregoing
premises considered, the plaintiffs most respectfully pray that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
Judgment
be rendered declaring the Certificate of Sale, the Definite Deed of
Sale
and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224439 issued to the
defendants
as null and void;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. In the same
judgment,
an order cancelling Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224439 in the
name
of said defendants be issued to the Register of Deeds, City of Manila;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. The
defendants shall
be ordered also to pay the plaintiffs the damages in the total sum of
FOUR
HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX (P436,000.00) THOUSAND PESOS, Philippine currency;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D. The
injunction earlier
issued be ordered to be permanent;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
E. In the said
judgment,
the Family Home of the plaintiffs comprised as Lot 21 and the
plaintiffs'
residence thereat be declared free from any encumbrances, foreclosure
sale,
Certificate of Sale, Definite Deed of Sale, attachment and the null and
void Transfer Certificate of Title No. 224439 aforementioned and any
other
document that may later on be shown as affecting the same Family Home.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a parallel move,
Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. filed on March 25, 1996 in LRC Cad. No. 291 a
motion
to set aside the Order dated February 8, 1996 and to dismiss the
petition
for a writ of possession. On May 20, 1996, the court issued an Order in
LRC Cad. No. 291 denying the motion. The movants appealed the order to
the Court of Appeals which rendered a Decision on February 17, 2000
affirming
the assailed order. The movants-appellants received a copy of the
decision
of the CA on March 3, 2000. On March 20, 2000, they filed a motion for
the reconsideration of the decision. On August 17, 2000, the CA issued
a resolution denying the motion of the appellants. The latter received
a copy of the said resolution on September 4, 2000 and on September 19,
2000, the appellants, now petitioners, filed with this Court a motion
for
extension of thirty days within which to file a petition for review of
the decision of the CA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their petition at
bar, the petitioners assailed the decision of the CA contending that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT OF
APPEALS
HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE IN ACCORD WITH THE
APPLICABLE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT PARTICULARLY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF
ART.
158 OF THE FAMILY CODE IN RELATION TO ART. 153 THEREOF WHERE THE FAMILY
RESIDENCE OF PETITIONERS/BENEFICIARIES IS CONSTITUTED BY OPERATION OF
LAW
AS FAMILY HOME.[4]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioners assert
that the real estate mortgage executed by the Spouses De Guzman on
March
9, 1993 is null and void for failure to secure the conformity of the
beneficiaries
of the family home as required by Article 158 of the Family
Code of the Philippines. Although the respondents are entitled to a
writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the said provision
has been repealed by the Family
Code of the Philippines, as provided for in Article 211 thereof.
The
petitioners also contend that the petitioners cannot be ousted from the
property without the respondents filing an ordinary action for the
recovery
of possession of the same, to give the mortgagors an opportunity to be
heard not only on the issue of possession of the property but also on
the
obligations of the mortgagors under the real estate mortgage.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For its part, the CA
noted that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After
expiration
of the redemption period without redemption being made, the writ must
issue
in order to place the buyer in possession of the foreclosed property
(Veloso,
et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra). The right to such
possession
is absolute; it may be obtained thru a writ which may be applied for ex
parte pursuant to Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended (Navarra vs. Court
of Appeals, 204 SCRA 850).
The subject
property
was not redeemed within the one-year period. Being the successful
bidder
in the foreclosure sale, appellee had consolidated ownership over the
property,
for which TCT No. 224439 was issued to him. In IFC Service Leasing and
Acceptance Corp. vs. Nera (19 SCRA 181), the Supreme Court stated that
"if under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the court has the power, on the ex
parte application of the purchaser, to issue a writ of possession
during
the period of redemption, there is no reason why it should not also
have
the same power after the expiration of that period, especially where,
as
in this case, a new title has already been issued in the name of the
purchaser."[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents posit
that the decision of the CA had become final and executory when the
petitioners
filed their motion for reconsideration of the decision only on March
20,
2000 or seventeen (17) days after being served a copy of the said
decision.
Furthermore, the CA did not commit any reversible error in its decision
on the merits of the petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By way of riposte, the
petitioners aver that March 18, 2000, the last day to file a motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the CA, fell on a Saturday. Hence,
they
had until March 20, 2000, the first regular working day, to file the
said
motion. However, the respondents did not raise the issue in the CA, and
raising the issue now in this case is but a mere afterthought. In any
event,
the petitioners argue that their failure to seasonably file their
motion
for reconsideration is a mere procedural lapse; hence, it should not
prevail
over their right to appeal from the assailed decision of the CA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition has no
merit.cralaw:red
The parties raised two
issues in this case: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) whether
the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of the CA
was
filed out of time; and chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) on its merits,
whether
the petition should be granted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioners' motion
for reconsideration of the CA decision was filed within the
reglementary
period therefor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 1, Rule 22 of
the Rules of
Court,
as amended, and as applied in several cases, provides that where the
last
day of the period for doing an act as provided by law falls on a
Saturday,
a Sunday or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time
should not run until the next working day. In this case, the
petitioners
had until March 18, 2000 within which to file their motion for the
reconsideration
of the decision of the CA. Since March 18, 2000 was a Saturday, the
petitioners
had until March 20, 2000, the next working day thereafter, to file
their
motion. The petitioners filed their motion on the said date; hence, the
motion was filed within the reglementary period therefor.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition, however,
stands to fail on the merits.cralaw:red
The petition is bereft
of merit, and is hereby denied due course.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First. The
one-year period for the petitioners to redeem the mortgaged property
had
already lapsed. Title to the property had already been consolidated
under
the name of the respondent. As the owner of the property, the
respondent
is entitled to its possession as a matter of right.[7]The
issuance of a writ of possession over the property by the court is
merely
a ministerial function. There is no need for the respondent to file an
action to evict the petitioners from the property and himself take
possession
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second. Any
question
regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a
legal
ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession. Regardless of
whether or not there is a pending action for the nullification of the
sale
at public auction, or the foreclosure itself, or even for the
nullification
of the real estate mortgage executed by the petitioners over the
property,
the respondent as purchaser at public auction is entitled to a writ of
possession without prejudice to the outcome of the action filed by the
petitioners with the Regional Trial Court of Manila docketed as Civil
Case
No. 95-75769.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third. The writ of
possession
issued by the trial court must be enforced without delay. It cannot be
stymied or thwarted by the petitioners by raising issues already raised
by them in Civil Case No. 95-75769. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth. The
petitioners
did not even oppose the petition for a writ of possession filed by the
respondent in the court a quo. Instead, they filed the complaint for
the
nullification of the foreclosure proceedings, the sale at public
auction
and the nullification of TCT No. T-224439 issued by the Register of
Deeds
of Manila in the name of the respondent, with a plea for injunctive
relief.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. Costs against the petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with Associate Justices
Ramon
A. Barcelona and Marina L. Buzon concurring.
[2]
Records, p. 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 46–47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 29–30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Labad v. University of Southeastern Philippines, 362 SCRA 510 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Manalo v. Court of Appeals, 366 SCRA 752 (2001); Banco Filipino Savings
and Mortgage Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 142 SCRA 44 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ong v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 189 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |