De Guzman vs. Chico

A certificate against forum shopping is not required in an ex parte petition or motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, because such a petition is not a complaint or other initiatory pleading but a mere incident in the transfer of title. The requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure attaches only to initiatory pleadings asserting a claim for relief, and the exemption is not confined to foreclosure sales under Act No. 3135.

The property, situated at 7-A 32 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City, was previously registered in the names of petitioners and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 164900. Respondent Gloria A. Chico acquired the property as the winning bidder at a public auction of tax-delinquent properties conducted by the City Government of Makati City pursuant to Sections 254 to 260 of the Local Government Code, and was issued a Certificate of Sale on the date of the auction. The statutory backdrop comprises the Local Government Code provisions on the redemption and conveyance of tax-delinquent properties, Sections 75 and 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree) on the entry of a new certificate of title upon expiration of the redemption period, and Act No. 3135 on the sale of property under special powers inserted in or annexed to real estate mortgages.

The subject of the case is a parcel of land at 7-A 32 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City, previously registered in the names of petitioners Angelina, Gilbert, Virgilio, Jr., and Anthony, all surnamed De Guzman, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 164900. On May 24, 2006, the City Government of Makati City conducted a public auction of tax-delinquent properties pursuant to Sections 254 to 260 of the Local Government Code. Respondent Gloria A. Chico emerged as the winning bidder, and the City Government executed a Certificate of Sale in her favor on the same date.

Petitioners failed to redeem the property within the one-year period allowed by law. Consequently, on July 12, 2007, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City an application for a new certificate of title under Section 75 in relation to Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, docketed as LRC Case No. M-4992 and raffled to Branch 62. After hearing, the trial court, on December 28, 2007, ordered that title over the property be consolidated and transferred in respondent's name. The Register of Deeds of Makati City accordingly cancelled TCT No. 164900 and issued TCT No. T-224923 in favor of respondent.

Thereafter, respondent moved in the same court for the issuance of a writ of possession, but the motion was denied for failure to set it for hearing. On January 14, 2009, respondent filed an Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the same property, docketed as LRC Case No. M-5188 and raffled to Branch 59. On April 1, 2009, the court granted the ex parte petition and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession in respondent's favor; the writ was subsequently issued on August 7, 2009.

On August 28, 2009, petitioners filed an urgent motion to cite respondent in contempt and to nullify the proceedings, on the ground that LRC Case No. M-5188 contained a defective and false verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Respondent opposed the motion on September 11, 2009, alleging that petitioners' objection to the certification was deemed waived for failure to timely object thereto, and that no forum shopping existed. On January 19, 2010, the court denied petitioners' motion, ruling that the ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, although denominated as a petition, is not an initiatory pleading and thus does not require a certificate of non-forum shopping; it likewise found petitioners' motion to present respondent and her counsel as witnesses to be without merit. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated April 19, 2010.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, averring that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders and arguing that the tax auction sale proceeding is governed by Sections 246 to 270 of the Local Government Code, and not by Act No. 3135 as relied upon by respondent. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the challenged orders. It held that there was no forum shopping because, prior to the filing of the ex parte petition in LRC Case No. M-5188, RTC Branch 62 had already denied respondent's motion for the issuance of a writ of possession in LRC Case No. M-4992; that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function, summary in nature, and cannot be a judgment on the merits but simply an incident in the transfer of title; that a certificate of non-forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings; and that the argument that the tax auction sale proceeding is governed by Sections 246 to 270 of the Local Government Code rather than Act No. 3135 was raised for the first time on appeal, the decision finding respondent the lawful and registered owner of the property by virtue of the public auction having long become final and executory and beyond the ambit of judicial review.

• Certificate Against Forum Shopping: Petitioners averred that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that, because of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, a certification of non-forum shopping was unnecessary in the ex parte petition, and that it was consequently unnecessary to examine respondent Chico and her counsel on said certification.
• Nature of the Proceedings — Accion Reivindicatoria: Petitioners maintained, invoking Article 433 of the Civil Code and the rulings in Factor vs. Martel, Jr., Serra Serra vs. Court of Appeals, and Maglente vs. Baltazar-Padilla, that the certification of non-forum shopping was required in the ex parte petition; that all proceedings in LRC Case No. M-5188 should have been in the nature of an accion reivindicatoria; and that, consequently, the proceedings were void, being summary and in the nature of proceedings for an ex parte motion.

• Non-Initiatory Pleading: Respondent insisted that a certification of non-forum shopping is not necessary because an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not an action, complaint, or initiatory pleading; although denominated as a petition, it is in the nature of a motion, whose office is not to initiate new litigation but to bring a material yet incidental matter arising in the progress of the case, here the registration proceedings.
• Forum Shopping: Respondent denied committing forum shopping and posited that it is petitioners who are guilty of it, noting that petitioners' arguments center on the alleged nullity of the writ of possession itself, which is likewise the subject of another petition before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 110654.
• Inapplicability of Article 433: Respondent argued that Article 433 of the New Civil Code has no application to a buyer of property in a tax delinquency sale; that the cases cited by petitioners do not involve actions pertaining to tax delinquency sales; and that petitioners could not identify any provision of law or jurisprudence requiring a buyer in a tax delinquency sale to file an independent action to take possession of the property bought.

• Certificate Against Forum Shopping: Whether a certificate against forum shopping is required in an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession.
• Propriety of the Writ of Possession: Whether the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in a tax delinquency sale was warranted, or whether the purchaser was instead required to institute an accion reivindicatoria.
• Finality of the Judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992: Whether petitioners may attack the validity of the proceedings in LRC Case No. M-4992 after the judgment therein had become final and executory.

• Certificate Against Forum Shopping: No. An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not a complaint or other initiatory pleading under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, but a mere incident in the transfer of title.
• Propriety of the Writ of Possession: Yes. The writ was warranted, respondent's ownership by virtue of the tax delinquency sale and the expiration of the redemption period having been established, and the judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992 having become final and executory.
• Finality of the Judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992: No. A final and executory judgment may be invalidated only through a petition for relief under Rule 38 or a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, neither of which petitioners filed.

• Certificate Against Forum Shopping: Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires a certification against forum shopping in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not such a pleading. As explained in Arquiza vs. Court of Appeals, although the pleading is denominated a petition, it is nonetheless a motion, and what distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it but rather its purpose. A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession does not aim to initiate new litigation; it issues as an incident or consequence of the original registration or cadastral proceedings, and the requirement for a forum shopping certification is thereby dispelled. The Court rejected petitioners' narrow view that only cases covered by foreclosure sales under Act No. 3135 are excused, noting that jurisprudence recognizes the issuance of a writ of possession in (a) land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (b) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (c) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (d) execution sales. No law or jurisprudence makes the requirement depend on the nature of the proceeding in which the petition is filed. Because a writ of possession is by its very nature a mere incident in the transfer of title — an incident of ownership and not a separate judgment — it would be absurd to require that a petition for its issuance be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping.

• Propriety of the Writ of Possession: Petitioners relied on Factor vs. Martel, Jr., Serra Serra vs. Court of Appeals, and Maglente vs. Baltazar-Padilla to argue that respondent availed of the wrong remedy. Those rulings do not apply: Factor involved the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to an original action for registration; Serra Serra involved a petition for reconstitution; and Maglente involved an action for interpleader. None contemplated the situation of a dispute between the previous registered owner of a parcel of land and the buyer in a tax delinquency sale, and none involved the right of a purchaser in a tax delinquency sale to the issuance of a writ of possession after the redemption period. In St. Raphael Montessori School, Inc. vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, an action involving the application of Act No. 3135, the Court recognized that the writ of possession was warranted not merely on the basis of law but ultimately on the right to possess as an incident of ownership; the right to possess a property merely follows the right of ownership, and it would be illogical to hold that a person having ownership of a parcel of land is barred from seeking possession. The basis for the grant of the writ here was respondent's ownership of the property by virtue of the tax delinquency sale in her favor and her absolute right of ownership arising from the expiration of the redemption period. In Cloma vs. Court of Appeals, where the City of Pasay sold the property of the Spouses Cloma at public auction for tax delinquency and the winning bidder obtained a final deed of sale after the spouses failed to redeem, the Court upheld the issuance of a writ of possession, citing Section 2 of PD No. 1529, which confers on courts exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title and over all petitions filed after original registration, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. Here, respondent's ownership was affirmed by the final and executory judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992, and Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court authorizes the employment of all ancillary writs, processes, and other means necessary to carry jurisdiction into effect. Republic (Department of Transportation and Communication) vs. City of Mandaluyong was distinguished: there the issuance of the writ was premature because there remained a pending issue on whether the auction sale should proceed in the first place, whereas here title had already been consolidated and a new certificate of title had already been issued in respondent's name, and the Decision in LRC Case No. M-4992 had long become final and executory as evidenced by the Entry of Judgment issued on March 3, 2008. The issuance of the writ of possession was therefore warranted.

• Finality of the Judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992: Petitioners cannot attack the validity of the proceedings in LRC Case No. M-4992. Having become final and executory, the judgment therein can only be nullified in a petition for annulment of judgment, which petitioners did not file. The general rule is that a final and executory judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified in any respect, and nothing further can be done but to execute it; such a judgment may, however, be invalidated via a petition for relief or a petition to annul the same under Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of Court.

• Writ of possession as an incident of ownership — A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land, commanding the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the person entitled under the judgment. It is a mere incident in the transfer of title, an incident of ownership and not a separate judgment. The right to possess a property merely follows the right of ownership, and it would be illogical to hold that a person having ownership of a parcel of land is barred from seeking possession. In this case, the writ issued on the strength of respondent's ownership acquired through the tax delinquency sale and her absolute right of ownership arising from the expiration of the redemption period.
• Non-initiatory nature of a petition for a writ of possession — What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but rather its purpose. A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession does not aim to initiate new litigation; it issues as an incident or consequence of the original registration or cadastral proceedings. Accordingly, it is not an initiatory pleading under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the requirement of a certificate against forum shopping is dispelled.
• Instances when a writ of possession may issue — Jurisprudence recognizes four instances: (a) land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496, the Land Registration Act; (b) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (c) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (d) execution sales. The availability of the remedy does not depend on the nature of the proceeding in which the petition is filed.
• Finality of judgments — A final and executory judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified in any respect, and nothing further can be done but to execute it. It may be invalidated only via a petition for relief or a petition to annul the same under Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of Court. A collateral attack on the validity of the proceedings that produced such a judgment is not permitted.

• "A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession does not aim to initiate new litigation, but rather issues as an incident or consequence of the original registration or cadastral proceedings. As such, the requirement for a forum shopping certification is dispelled." — This is the ratio decidendi of the first issue; it states the controlling rule that exempts an ex parte petition for a writ of possession from the certificate against forum shopping.
• "It would thus be absurd to require that a petition for the issuance of this writ to be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping." — This passage encapsulates the Court's rationale, grounding the exemption in the very nature of a writ of possession as a mere incident in the transfer of title rather than a separate judgment.
• "The right to possess a property merely follows the right of ownership, and it would be illogical to hold that a person having ownership of a parcel of land is barred from seeking possession." — This states the doctrine that the right to possess is an incident of ownership, which supplied the substantive basis for granting the writ in favor of the purchaser in the tax delinquency sale.
• "The general rule is that a final and executory judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified in any respect, and that nothing further can be done but to execute it. A final and executory decision may, however, be invalidated via a petition for relief or a petition to annul the same under Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of Court." — This articulates the doctrine of finality of judgments and identifies the exclusive remedies for invalidating a final and executory decision, foreclosing petitioners' collateral attack on the proceedings in LRC Case No. M-4992.

• Arquiza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 753 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on it for the rule that an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading but a motion, and that what distinguishes a motion from a petition is its purpose rather than its form or title.
• Sia vs. Arcenas, G.R. Nos. 209672-74, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 272 — Cited for the enumeration of the instances in which a writ of possession may be issued, and for the definition of a writ of possession as a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover possession of land.
• St. Raphael Montessori School, Inc. vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 184076, October 21, 2015, 773 SCRA 419 — Followed. The Court cited it for the principle that a writ of possession is warranted not merely on the basis of law but ultimately on the right to possess as an incident of ownership.
• Cloma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100153, August 2, 1994, 234 SCRA 665 — Followed. In a substantially similar factual setting involving a tax delinquency sale, the Court upheld the issuance of a writ of possession, citing Section 2 of PD No. 1529, which vests in the courts jurisdiction over all petitions filed after original registration and the power to determine all questions arising thereon.
• Republic (Department of Transportation and Communication) vs. City of Mandaluyong, G.R. No. 184879, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 269 — Distinguished. There the issuance of the writ of possession was premature because a pending issue remained as to whether the auction sale should proceed in the first place; that impediment did not exist here because title had already been consolidated and a new certificate of title issued, and the judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992 had become final and executory.
• Factor vs. Martel, Jr., G.R. No. 161037, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 549 — Distinguished. It involved the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to an original action for registration, and did not contemplate a dispute between a previous registered owner and a buyer in a tax delinquency sale.
• Serra Serra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 34080, March 22, 1991, 195 SCRA 482 — Distinguished. It involved a petition for reconstitution and did not involve the right of a purchaser in a tax delinquency sale to a writ of possession after the redemption period.
• Maglente vs. Baltazar-Padilla, G.R. No. 148182, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 643 — Distinguished. It involved an action for interpleader and was inapplicable to the factual situation presented.
• Genato Investments, Inc. vs. Barrientos, G.R. No. 207443, July 2014, 731 SCRA 35 — Cited for the rule on the finality of judgments and the exclusive remedies of a petition for relief or a petition for annulment of judgment for invalidating a final and executory decision.

• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires a certification against forum shopping in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief. The Court held that an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not such a pleading, so the requirement does not apply.
• Section 75, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs the application for a new certificate of title upon expiration of the redemption period after registered land has been sold on execution or for the enforcement of a lien. It was the basis of respondent's application in LRC Case No. M-4992, which resulted in the consolidation and transfer of title in her name.
• Section 107, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Governs the surrender of withheld duplicate certificates and the entry of a new certificate of title pursuant to an involuntary instrument. It was invoked in relation to Section 75 in respondent's application for a new certificate of title.
• Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Confers on courts exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title and over all petitions filed after original registration, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The Court cited it in Cloma to affirm the trial court's authority to issue a writ of possession to effectuate the result of a tax sale.
• Sections 254 to 260, Local Government Code — Govern the public auction of tax-delinquent properties. The auction of the subject property on May 24, 2006 was conducted pursuant to these provisions.
• Sections 261 and 262, Local Government Code — Section 261 governs the redemption of property sold within one year from the date of sale, and Section 262 governs the execution of the final deed to the purchaser upon failure to redeem. These provisions, in relation to Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, supplied the basis for respondent's absolute right of ownership upon the expiration of the redemption period.
• Section 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Provides that if no redemption is made within one year from the registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property. The Court cited it in relation to the Local Government Code provisions on redemption.
• Section 10, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Governs the execution of judgments for specific acts, including the conveyance of land and the vesting of title. It was cited in connection with the finality of the judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992.
• Section 6, Rule 135, Rules of Court — Provides that when jurisdiction is conferred on a court by law, all ancillary writs, processes, and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed, and where the procedure is not specifically pointed out, any suitable process or mode of proceeding conformable to the spirit of the law or rules may be adopted. The trial court relied on it in granting the ex parte petition for the writ of possession.
• Section 7, Act No. 3135 — Governs the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. The Court held that the exemption from the certificate against forum shopping is not confined to cases covered by this provision.
• Section 17, Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act) — Identified as one of the instances in which a writ of possession may be issued, namely, in land registration proceedings.
• Article 433, Civil Code — Invoked by petitioners to argue that the proceedings should have been in the nature of an accion reivindicatoria. The Court found the provision inapplicable to a buyer of property in a tax delinquency sale.
• Rules 38 and 47, Rules of Court — Provide the remedies of a petition for relief and a petition for annulment of judgment, respectively, by which a final and executory decision may be invalidated. Petitioners availed of neither.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concurred in the Decision.