In the Philippines, a certificate against forum shopping is not required when filing a petition or motion for the issuance of a writ of possession following a tax delinquency sale. This means that the buyer of a property sold due to tax delinquency can obtain a writ of possession without needing to certify that they haven’t filed similar claims elsewhere. This ruling simplifies the process for new property owners to take possession, ensuring that their ownership rights are promptly enforced without additional procedural hurdles. This decision clarifies the scope of required certifications in property disputes, offering guidance to both property owners and legal practitioners.

Tax Delinquency and Property Rights: When Does a New Owner Get Possession?

This case revolves around a property in Makati City, previously owned by the De Guzman family and later acquired by Gloria Chico through a public auction due to tax delinquency. After the De Guzmans failed to redeem the property within the one-year period, Chico sought to consolidate the title in her name. Upon securing a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), Chico filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession. The De Guzmans contested this, arguing that Chico’s petition lacked a proper certification against forum shopping and that the proceedings should have been an accion reivindicatoria, a full-blown recovery of ownership action.

The heart of the legal matter was whether an ex parte petition for a writ of possession, filed after a tax delinquency sale, requires a certification against forum shopping. This requirement, outlined in Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, mandates that a party filing a claim must certify they haven’t initiated similar actions elsewhere. The De Guzmans argued that this certification was essential, and its absence rendered the proceedings void. Conversely, Chico contended that the petition was merely an incident to the registration proceedings, not an initiatory pleading, thus exempting it from the certification requirement.

The Supreme Court sided with Chico, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision and clarifying that a certificate against forum shopping isn’t required in such cases. The Court emphasized the nature of a writ of possession, explaining,

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.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that a writ of possession is essentially an enforcement mechanism tied to ownership, not a separate cause of action. The Court also addressed the De Guzmans’ argument that Chico should have filed an accion reivindicatoria, which would have required a full trial on ownership.

The Court distinguished the cases cited by the De Guzmans, noting that those cases didn’t involve tax delinquency sales. Instead, the Court emphasized that the right to possess the property stemmed directly from Chico’s ownership, acquired through the tax sale and the expiration of the redemption period. As the Court pointed out in St. Raphael Montessori School, Inc. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,

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 Court drew upon Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, highlighting that courts have the power to resolve all questions arising from land registration petitions. This power extends to issuing writs of possession to enforce ownership rights. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the final and executory judgment in LRC Case No. M-4992, which consolidated the title in Chico’s name, further solidified her right to the writ.

The Supreme Court also explained the concept of a writ of possession, underscoring its nature as a tool to enforce a judgment for the recovery of land:

To be clear, a writ of possession is defined as 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.

The Court rejected the argument that the tax auction sale proceeding should be governed by Sections 246 to 270 of the Local Government Code, and not by Act No. 3135, stating that the issue was raised by petitioners for the first time on appeal.

The Court contrasted this situation with Republic v. City of Mandaluyong, where the issuance of a writ of possession was deemed premature because a fundamental issue regarding the validity of the auction sale remained unresolved. In Chico’s case, the title had already been consolidated, and no legal obstacles remained to prevent her from taking possession.

The Court also addressed the De Guzmans’ attempt to challenge the validity of the proceedings in LRC Case No. M-4992. Since the judgment in that case was final and executory, the proper recourse would have been a petition for annulment of judgment, which they did not pursue.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case affirms the right of a buyer in a tax delinquency sale to obtain a writ of possession without the need for a certificate against forum shopping. This ruling streamlines the process for enforcing property rights and provides clarity on the procedural requirements in such cases.

FAQs

What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order that directs the sheriff to put someone in possession of a property. It is often used to enforce a judgment or to allow a new owner to take control of a property they have legally acquired.
What is a certificate against forum shopping?	A certificate against forum shopping is a sworn statement required in initiatory pleadings, asserting that the party has not filed similar actions in other courts or tribunals. It aims to prevent parties from pursuing the same claim in multiple venues simultaneously.
Why was a certificate against forum shopping not required in this case?	The Court ruled that an ex parte petition for a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading but rather an incident to a prior registration proceeding. Therefore, the requirement for a certificate against forum shopping does not apply.
What is an accion reivindicatoria?	An accion reivindicatoria is a legal action to recover ownership of real property. It requires the plaintiff to prove their ownership and identify the property, leading to a full trial on the merits of the ownership claim.
What happens if the previous owner refuses to leave the property?	If the previous owner refuses to leave, the sheriff can enforce the writ of possession by physically removing them from the property. This ensures that the new owner can take peaceful possession as ordered by the court.
Can the previous owner challenge the issuance of a writ of possession?	Yes, but the grounds for challenge are limited. The previous owner can argue procedural defects or claim that the writ was improperly issued, but they cannot relitigate the issue of ownership if it has already been decided in a final judgment.
What law governs tax delinquency sales in the Philippines?	Tax delinquency sales are primarily governed by Sections 254 to 260 of the Local Government Code. These provisions outline the procedures for selling tax-delinquent properties at public auction.
What is the redemption period after a tax delinquency sale?	The owner of the tax-delinquent property has one year from the date of sale to redeem the property. Redemption involves paying the delinquent tax, interest, and expenses of the sale to the local treasurer.
What happens after the redemption period expires?	If the property is not redeemed within the one-year period, the local treasurer executes a final deed of sale conveying the property to the purchaser. The purchaser then has the right to possess the property.

This ruling provides a clear understanding of the procedures involved in obtaining a writ of possession after a tax delinquency sale, reinforcing the rights of the new property owner. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal processes while ensuring efficient enforcement of property rights.

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: Angelina De Guzman, et al. v. Gloria A. Chico, G.R. No. 195445, December 7, 2016