In Hernandez v. Ocampo, the Supreme Court addressed whether a writ of possession, issued after an extrajudicial foreclosure, can be enforced against someone claiming adverse possession of the property. The Court ruled that while the issuance of a writ of possession is typically a ministerial duty, it ceases to be so when a third party holds the property adversely to the debtor. However, the Court found that the claimant’s possession was uncertain, and the banks were mortgagees in good faith. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, emphasizing that the claimant failed to demonstrate a clear right to the property, highlighting the importance of clear and undisputed possession in such disputes.

Whose Land Is It Anyway? Foreclosure, Possession, and the Fight for Property Rights

The case began with Milagros Hernandez’s claim to two parcels of land in Biñan, Laguna, which she alleged to have purchased in 1985. However, the titles to these properties were later registered in the names of Edwina Ocampo and Felicitas Mendoza, who subsequently mortgaged them to Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank), respectively. These mortgages were eventually foreclosed, leading to the banks’ acquisition of the properties at public auctions and subsequent petitions for writs of possession. Hernandez, asserting her prior claim, sought to annul the titles and prevent the enforcement of these writs, sparking a legal battle over property rights and possession.

The central issue revolves around the enforceability of writs of possession against third parties claiming adverse possession. A writ of possession is an order directing the sheriff to place someone in possession of a property. Generally, in extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser (often the mortgagee bank) can apply for this writ. This is typically a ministerial duty, meaning the court must issue it upon proper application. However, the Supreme Court has carved out an exception to this rule.

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 is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor.

This exception, rooted in Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, states that if a third party holds the property adversely to the judgment debtor (the original owner who lost the property to foreclosure), the writ of possession cannot be automatically enforced. In such cases, the court must conduct a hearing to determine the nature of the third party’s possession. This is to protect the due process rights of individuals who may have a legitimate claim to the property, independent of the foreclosure proceedings.

Hernandez argued that she fell under this exception, asserting her continuous, open, and adverse possession of the lots since 1985. She claimed that the writs of possession, addressed to Ocampo and Mendoza, could not be enforced against her because she was not privy to the foreclosure proceedings and her claim was adverse to the mortgagors. However, the Court found a critical flaw in Hernandez’s argument: the certainty of her possession was questionable.

The Court emphasized that for the exception to apply, there must be undisputed evidence that the third party is actually in possession of the property. In this case, the banks presented evidence suggesting the properties were unoccupied during their ocular inspections. They also noted that the titles and tax declarations remained in the names of Ocampo and Mendoza, with no annotations of any adverse claims by Hernandez.

In contrast, petitioner’s possession of the subject properties in this case is questionable. As correctly observed by the courts below, petitioner failed to substantiate his possession with sufficient evidence.

This lack of clear evidence of possession undermined Hernandez’s claim to the exception. The Court, citing Gopiao v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., stressed the need for certainty of possession before deviating from the general rule of issuing writs of possession. Because of the conflicting claims and the absence of concrete proof of Hernandez’s possession, the Court held that the issuance of the writs remained a ministerial duty.

Despite this setback, the Court acknowledged that Hernandez was not without recourse. Philippine law provides remedies for third parties claiming ownership of property levied upon: terceria (a third-party claim) and a separate independent action. Terceria allows a third party to assert their claim in the ongoing execution proceedings, while a separate action allows them to pursue a distinct legal case to recover ownership or possession.

In this case, Hernandez had already initiated a separate action for annulment of title. It was within this action that she sought a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the writs of possession. However, the Court ultimately denied the injunction, finding that Hernandez had failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right to the properties.

The Court emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted when the applicant’s right is clear and undisputed. In this case, the conflicting claims of possession and ownership, coupled with the banks’ status as mortgagees in good faith, created sufficient doubt to warrant the denial of the injunction. Furthermore, the Court cautioned against issuing an injunction that would effectively dispose of the main case (annulment of title) without a full trial on the merits.

This decision underscores the importance of clearly establishing possession when challenging a writ of possession in foreclosure cases. It also highlights the remedies available to third parties who claim ownership or possession of property subject to foreclosure, emphasizing the need for a judicial determination of their rights. This serves as a reminder to property owners to diligently register their claims and maintain clear records of possession to protect their interests.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a writ of possession, issued after an extrajudicial foreclosure, could be enforced against a third party claiming adverse possession of the property.
What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order directing the sheriff to place someone in possession of a specific property. It is commonly issued to the purchaser of a property after a foreclosure sale.
When is the issuance of a writ of possession considered a ministerial duty?	The issuance of a writ of possession is generally considered a ministerial duty when the purchaser has complied with all legal requirements, such as the lapse of the redemption period.
What is the exception to the ministerial duty of issuing a writ of possession?	The exception arises when a third party is in possession of the property, claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. In such cases, the court must conduct a hearing to determine the nature of the possession.
What did the Court find regarding Hernandez’s possession of the property?	The Court found that Hernandez’s possession was questionable, as there was conflicting evidence and a lack of clear proof that she was actually occupying the property.
What remedies are available to a third party claiming ownership of foreclosed property?	A third party can pursue remedies such as a terceria (third-party claim) in the execution proceedings or file a separate independent action to recover ownership or possession of the property.
Why was the preliminary injunction denied in this case?	The preliminary injunction was denied because Hernandez failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right to the properties, given the conflicting claims of possession and ownership.
What is the significance of being a “mortgagee in good faith”?	A mortgagee in good faith is one who, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, has no knowledge that the property is being disputed by another. This status strengthens the bank’s right to enforce the mortgage.

The Hernandez v. Ocampo case clarifies the nuances of enforcing writs of possession in foreclosure scenarios, especially when third-party claims are involved. While the issuance of such writs remains largely a ministerial function, the Court acknowledges the importance of protecting the due process rights of individuals claiming adverse possession. This ruling highlights the need for careful evaluation of possession claims and the availability of legal remedies for those whose property rights may be affected by foreclosure proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Milagros Hernandez v. Edwina C. Ocampo, G.R. No. 181268, August 15, 2016