View full case

EDMUND SIA v. WILFREDO ARCENAS

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over two parcels of land, Lot 145-A and Lot No. 1839-pt, located in Barangay IX, Roxas City, Capiz. Due to real property tax delinquencies of Panay Railways, Incorporated (PRI) over the subject lots, the City Treasurer of Roxas City auctioned the lots and petitioner Edmund Sia emerged as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was issued in petitioner's favor on December 20, 1996. However, the City Treasurer refused to issue a Final Bill of Sale despite the lapse of the redemption period and then-Mayor Juliano Alba issued an Executive Order nullifying the auction sale. As a result, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of the Executive Order, mandamus, and damages against the City Treasurer, Mayor Alba, and others.

The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordered the City Treasurer to issue the Final Bill of Sale, and this decision was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court denied PRI's appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioner moved for execution and obtained a Writ of Possession and a Writ of Demolition. Respondents, who were occupying the subject lots, filed a motion to quash the writs, arguing that the execution of a mandamus judgment does not include a writ of possession. The RTC denied their motion, but the CA set aside the writs, directing the RTC to enforce the Writ of Execution.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA, leading to the filing of this petition before the Supreme Court. The main issue for the Court to resolve is whether or not the CA correctly nullified the writs of possession and demolition and directed the RTC to enforce the Writ of Execution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the writs of possession and demolition issued by the RTC Br. 15 are null and void.

  2. Whether the CA correctly directed the RTC Br. 15 to enforce the Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008 in accordance with Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the CA correctly declared the writs of possession and demolition null and void and directed the RTC Br. 15 to enforce the Writ of Execution dated February 28, 2008 in accordance with Section 11, Rule 39 in relation to Section 9, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The power of the RTC to execute a judgment in a mandamus case is limited to directing compliance with the judgment and punishing with contempt the person required by law to obey the same. (Municipality of San Andres, Catanduanes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106578, February 9, 2001)

  • The issuance of writs of possession and demolition in tax delinquency proceedings at a public auction is necessary to give effect to the extrajudicial foreclosure and secure the properties for the successful bidder. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174194, June 6, 2012)