FACTS:

The registered owners of a parcel of land mortgaged it to respondent Active Bank. Due to failure to settle their obligation, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, and the owners failed to redeem the property during the redemption period. The bank filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Possession with the trial court, which was opposed by petitioner Iluminada Policarpio. Policarpio claimed ownership of the property based on a Deed of Sale executed in her favor. The trial court ordered the issuance of the Writ of Possession, finding the Deed of Sale to be void. Policarpio was then served with the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate. When the bank attempted to take possession of the property, the intervention of the police and security personnel prevented them from fully occupying it. Policarpio filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the trial court's resolution and writ. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that the sale in favor of Policarpio was questionable and that Policarpio's right of action was barred by laches. Policarpio filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Policarpio is a third party in possession of the property contemplated under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

2. Whether the sale between Policarpio and the owners of the property is void.

3. Whether Policarpio's claim is barred by laches.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying Policarpio's petition. The Court held that Policarpio is not a third party in possession of the property, as she claimed, and therefore, the trial court was not precluded from issuing a Writ of Possession in favor of the bank. The Court found that the Deed of Sale in favor of Policarpio was void due to the absence of Grelita's (one of the owners) consent and the failure to register the sale. The Court also noted that Policarpio failed to protect her interests as a lawyer and relied solely on the assurances of the seller without verifying the status of the property. Finally, the Court distinguished the case relied on by Policarpio, Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, as the circumstances of that case were different from the present case. Hence, the Court held that there was no reversible error committed by the lower courts in favoring the bank's ownership and right to possess the property.