G.R. No. 196950 , June 18, 2014.
HELEN E. CABLING, assisted by her husband ARIEL CABLING, Petitioner, vs. JOSELIN TAN LUMAPAS, as represented by NORY ABELLANES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Helen E. Cabling was the highest bidder in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale conducted on December 21, 2007 over a property covered by TCT No. T-14852. A Final Deed of Sale was issued on February 14, 2009, and TCT No. T-14853 was issued to the petitioner on March 23, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the petitioner filed an Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC. The RTC granted the application and issued a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate. Respondent Joselin Tan Lumapas, through counsel, filed a Motion for Leave of Court for Intervention as Party Defendant (with Urgent Motion to Hold in Abeyance Implementation of Writ of Possession) and an Answer in Intervention, claiming she was a third party in actual possession of the property by virtue of a Deed of Conditional Sale with the registered owner/mortgagor, Aida Ibabao. The RTC initially held the writ in abeyance and denied the motion for intervention, but upon reconsideration, issued an order on July 14, 2009, recalling the writ of possession, stating that an ex-parte writ cannot be enforced against a third person in actual possession who is not in privity with the debtor/mortgagor. The RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2009. The CA dismissed the petitioner’s Rule 65 petition, affirming the RTC’s orders, ruling that the trial court’s obligation to issue a writ ceases to be ministerial when a third party in possession claims a right adverse to the debtor/mortgagor.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s recall of the ex-parte writ of possession, based on the exception that a third party (the respondent) is in actual possession of the foreclosed property claiming a right adverse to the judgment debtor/mortgagor.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA decision, and ORDERED the RTC to issue a Writ of Possession in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the general rule on the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession after an extrajudicial foreclosure sale applies, not the exception. The exception under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applies only when a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as a co-owner, tenant, or usufructuary, possessing in their own right. The respondent’s possession, based on a Deed of Conditional Sale, did not constitute adverse title or right. In a conditional sale, ownership is retained by the seller until full payment of the purchase price. The Deed of Conditional Sale expressly reserved ownership to the seller until full payment, and no deed of absolute sale had been executed in the respondent’s favor. Therefore, the respondent’s possession was not adverse to or independent of the judgment debtor/mortgagor. The petitioner, as the purchaser after consolidation of title, is entitled to the writ as a matter of course.