SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208461. November 10, 2021.]
REX G. RICO, petitioner, vs.HEIRS OF AVENILO PADERNA, NAMELY: LINDA PADERNA [SURVIVING SPOUSE] AND CHILDREN: ROBERT PADERNA, AVENILO PADERNA, JR., JENNIFER P. LEE AND DINO PADERNA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 208461 (Rex G. Rico v. Heirs of Avenilo Paderna, namely: Linda Paderna [surviving spouse] and children: Robert Paderna, Avenilo Paderna, Jr., Jennifer P. Lee and Dino Paderna). — This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the February 8, 2013 Decision 2 and July 4, 2013 Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 39 in SCA Case No. 12-31438, denying petitioner Rex G. Rico's (Rico) claim for reasonable value of use and occupation of a parcel of land averred by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-127985 and T-127986 (subject properties) situated in Jaro, Iloilo City.
The Antecedents:
The instant case emanated from a complaint 4 for unlawful detainer filed by Valerie Ledesma-Do, et al. (collectively, Ledesmas) against Avenilo Paderna (Paderna), predecessor-in-interest of respondents, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, Branch 4, in Civil Case No. 99 (109) for which a Decision 5 was rendered in favor of the Ledesmas. The pertinent portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant ordering the latter, his privies, heirs or representative or any person or persons claim under him, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
2. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P422,342.09 representing the unpaid rentals from January 1992 up to April 1999 plus 12% interest per annum from date of demand until the whole amount is fully paid;
3. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P8,957.85 per month as fair and reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises by the defendant plus 10% interest per annum from the date of demand until the possession is finally delivered to plaintiff;
4. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P4,749.00 representing the unpaid rentals plus the amount of P2,149.89 per month plus 10% interest per annum for the use and occupation of the premises (Balitanas space) by the defendant from the date of demand until the possession is delivered to plaintiff; 6 x x x
Paderna filed an appeal 7 but the same was dismissed 8 by the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 32. Meanwhile, the Ledesmas filed a motion for immediate execution, which was later granted. 9 On October 13, 2000, a writ of execution 10 was issued. Since no further appeal was taken by the heirs of Paderna upon his death, the MTCC Decision became final and executory.
For the heirs of Paderna's failure to pay the money judgment despite demand, their real properties were levied on execution and sold at public auction for P800,000.00 and P400,000.00 on May 8, 2001 and April 30, 2002, respectively. 11 Accordingly, the certificates of sale at public auction 12 covering the subject properties were registered with the Register of Deeds of Iloilo City on May 9, 2001 and May 9, 2002. After the lapse of the period of redemption without the heirs of Paderna redeeming the foreclosed properties, the sheriff's final deed of sale 13 over their properties were issued on June 11, 2002 and July 28, 2003, respectively.
Subsequently, the purchasers of the properties executed a deed of assignment 14 in favor of Rico. On November 23, 2006, Rico filed a petition 15 with the RTC to compel the heirs of Paderna to surrender possession of the owner's copies of the TCTs over the subject properties now owned by him, which the RTC granted. 16 The heirs of Paderna filed a notice of appeal, 17 which the RTC later expunged. 18
On April 20, 2011, Rico filed with the MTCC a motion for the issuance of writ of possession 19 with a supplemental 20 thereto. An amended version 21 was later filed on May 9, 2011 with the additional allegation that Rico was entitled to the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the subject properties.
Ruling of the Municipal Trial
In its Order 22 dated November 8, 2011, the MTCC granted Rico's prayer for a writ of possession but denied the claim of P1,822,851.00 as reasonable value for the use and occupation of the properties sold on execution.
Discontented, Rico filed a motion for partial reconsideration 23 but was later denied by the MTCC in its Orders 24 dated February 27, 2012 and April 30, 2012.
Thereafter, Rico elevated the case to the RTC. 25 He argued that the MTCC gravely abused its discretion in denying the monetary claim for the use and occupation of the properties by the heirs of Paderna, despite their refusal to surrender the same after the lapse of the redemption period. As the assignee of the purchasers of the subject properties at public auction, Rico claimed that he became the absolute owner thereof after the expiration of the redemption periods. Hence, he contended that he was entitled to claim the reasonable value for use and occupation of the subject properties allegedly withheld from him. 26
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its February 8, 2013 Decision, 27 the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the respondent judge has acted within jurisdiction. The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. The assailed Orders issued by the public respondent are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. 28
Rico filed a motion for reconsideration 29 but the same was denied in the RTC's Order 30 dated July 4, 2013.
While the RTC agreed that Rico had the right to recover unpaid rentals for the use and occupation of the properties sold at public auction, it held that the same cannot be recovered in a petition for a writ of possession. It explained that a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature where claims for damages and the like, which must be proven and justified after affording the parties a day in court, cannot be granted. 31 It reasoned that if payment of unpaid rentals would be allowed in a summary case for a writ of possession, the rudiments of due process will be violated since the possessor will be deprived to question the propriety of the claim. 32
Discontented, Rico elevated 33 the matter directly before the Court.
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved is whether a purchaser in an execution sale of levied properties, or the assignee thereof, may claim damages for the use and occupation of the subject properties in a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.
Our Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious.
At the outset, it bears stressing that Rico filed the present petition directly with this Court instead of availing the appropriate remedy with the Court of Appeals, in violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts. The strict observance of the hierarchy of courts is mandated "in order [for the Court] to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous, and impertinent cases and, thus, afford time for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it." 34 Direct recourse to the Court will only be allowed in exceptional and compelling circumstances which call for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction 35 such as (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case. 36 However, this was not established in the present case.
Even if the Court must rule on the merits, the case would still necessarily fail.
Rico argues that a claim under Section 32, Rule 39 37 of the Rules of Court is a necessary incident and in conjunction with a motion for a writ of possession under Section 33, Rule 39. 38 Thus, he postulates that claims for unpaid rentals is a proper relief in a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. 39
We are not convinced.
The purchaser at the public auction sale of an extrajudicially foreclosed real property is entitled to all the rights of ownership over the same, including the right of possession. 40 Thus, the purchaser may seek possession thereof in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, 41 as amended, which provides:
SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form or an ex parte motion x x x and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.
In the present case, it is undisputed that Rico is entitled to the possession of the subject properties as the assignee of the purchasers thereof in the public auction. In filing the amended motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, 42 he claimed for unpaid rentals for the reasonable use and occupation of the subject properties. However, such relief goes beyond the ambit of a writ of possession whose purpose is merely to place the movant in possession of the property being rightfully claimed.
A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment for the recovery of possession of a land and to enable the sheriff to enter the said land and give its possession to the one entitled to under the judgment. 43 The writ of possession is nothing more than a complement of the writ of execution. 44 As such, it shall substantially conform to the terms of the judgment and not go beyond it. 45 Accordingly, it is a non-litigious and summary proceeding. 46 In fact, under the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Procedure, a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession is already expressly recognized as a non-litigious motion. 47
Hence, Rico's claim for rentals for the reasonable use and occupation of the subject properties cannot be made in a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession for being the wrong avenue to assert his claim. Since the writ is merely based on another ruling on the merits, there should be no more issues to be passed upon. However, the same cannot be said in Rico's motion since he is claiming for unpaid rentals — an issue that has not been threshed out.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The assailed February 8, 2013 Decision and July 4, 2013 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 39 in SCA Case No. 12-31438 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-24.
2.Id. at 26-31. Penned by Presiding Judge Victorino Oliveros Maniba, Jr.
3.Id. at 32-43.
4. Records, pp. 9-14.
5.Rollo, pp. 66-76.
6.Id. at 75-76.
7.Id. at 78.
8.Id. at 28.
9.Id. at 79-82.
10.Id. at 83.
11.Id. at 28.
12.Id. at 88-90 and 99-101.
13.Id. at 120-124.
14.Id. at 108-116.
15.Id. at 28-29.
16.Id. at 29.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. Records, pp. 486-496.
20.Rollo, p. 29.
21. Records, pp. 648-660.
22.Rollo, pp. 167-169.
23.Id. at 29.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 170-191.
26.Id. at 29-30.
27.Id. at 26-31.
28.Id. at 31.
29.Id. at 32.
30.Id. at 32-43.
31.Id. at 33-38.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 3-25.
34.Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. v. Riel, 750 Phil. 57, 68 (2015).
35.PCGG Chairman Elma v. Jacobi, 689 Phil. 307, 336 (2012), citing Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 633; and People v. Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418, 427 (1989).
36.Dy v. Judge Bibat-Palamos, 717 Phil. 776, 782-783 (2013), citing Republic of the Philippines v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013.
37. Section 32. Rents, earnings and income of property pending redemption. — The purchaser or a redemptioner shall not be entitled to receive the rents, earnings and income of the property sold on execution, or the value of the use and occupation thereof when such property is in the possession of a tenant. All rents, earnings and income derived from the property pending redemption shall belong to the judgment obligor until the expiration of his period of redemption. (34a)
38. Section 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given. — If no redemption be made within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and no other redemption has been made, and notice thereof given, and the time for redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance and possession; x x x. Upon the 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 adversely to the judgment obligor. (35a)
39.Rollo, pp. 12-21.
40.Sps. Reyes v. Sps. Chang, 818 Phil. 225, 236 (2017).
41. Entitled "an act to regulate the sale of property under special powers inserted in or annexed to real-estate mortgages" approved on March 6, 1924.
42.Rollo, pp. 12-21.
43. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 1444.
44.Omnas v. Rivera, 67 Phil. 419, 422 (1939).
45.Villoria v. Piccio, 95 Phil. 802, 805-806 (1954).
46.Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., 650 Phil. 174, 185-186 (2010).
47. RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, Section 4.