DENNIS L. ESTRADA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ARMANDO C. VELASCO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 263 OF MARIKINA CITY, PUBLIC RESPONDENT.

Estrada versus Velasco

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Dennis Estrada against Judge Armando Velasco, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, and against the private purchaser Inocentes Realty and Sales Corporation. Dennis Estrada asks the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's order granting a writ of possession over a parcel of land that his parents, Spouses Cirilo and Priscilla Estrada, lost through a public auction conducted by the City of Marikina for delinquent real property taxes. The case matters because it settles a question every property lawyer must answer: does the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession after a tax delinquency sale, and is that writ a matter of right once title has been consolidated in the buyer's name?

Procedural History

The property was sold at a public auction in November 2007, and after the redemption period lapsed without redemption, a Final Deed of Sale was issued to Inocentes Realty and Sales Corporation. The buyer then filed a petition for confirmation of sale and consolidation of ownership before Branch 273 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, which confirmed the sale in a decision dated February 22, 2010. That decision became final and executory on April 7, 2010, and a new transfer certificate of title was issued in the buyer's name.

When the Estradas refused to vacate despite a demand letter, the buyer filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before Branch 263 of the same court. Dennis Estrada moved to dismiss, arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction over a writ arising from a public sale conducted by a local government. The motion was denied, as was his motion for reconsideration. The trial court then rendered the assailed decision on March 12, 2013, granting the writ, and denied reconsideration on May 8, 2013.

Dennis Estrada went directly to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, raising four assigned errors: that the petition was really one for unlawful detainer cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court; that no law conferred jurisdiction on the trial court to issue the writ in a public bidding under the Local Government Code; that the writ was issued without factual and legal basis; and that the buyer failed to establish any right under Act No. 3135.

Facts

Spouses Cirilo and Priscilla Estrada owned a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title, and their son Dennis Estrada occupied it. Because of alleged delinquencies in the payment of real property tax, the City of Marikina conducted a public bidding on November 22, 2007. Inocentes Realty and Sales Corporation submitted the highest bid, and a Certificate of Sale was issued to it.

The redemption period lapsed without the spouses exercising their right to redeem, so a Final Deed of Sale was issued to the buyer. The trial court confirmed the sale and consolidated ownership in the buyer's name, and the decision became final and executory. The old title in the name of the spouses was cancelled and a new one was issued to the buyer.

A demand letter to vacate was sent to the spouses, who refused to leave. The buyer then filed the ex parte petition for a writ of possession. Dennis Estrada resisted, but the trial court granted the writ, and he elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession over property acquired through a public sale conducted by a local government for delinquent real property taxes.
• Whether or not the petition for a writ of possession is in truth an action for unlawful detainer cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
• Whether or not the private respondent established by evidence its right to the issuance of the writ of possession.
• Whether or not the trial court's decision violated the constitutional requirement that every decision state distinctly and clearly the facts and the law on which it is based.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Presidential Decree Number 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.

This is the statutory basis for the trial court's jurisdiction, because the petition for the writ is a petition filed after original registration of title, and the court has power to hear and determine all questions arising upon it.

Section 14 of Article Eight of the 1987 Constitution, invoked by the petitioner, provides:

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

The Court measured the assailed decision against this requirement and found it satisfied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, together with the ruling in the case of Spouses Cloma versus Court of Appeals, is categorical that the trial court may issue a writ of possession to effectuate the result of a tax sale. The Court stressed that the decree long ago abolished the difference between the general jurisdiction of a regular court and the limited jurisdiction of a registration court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition is not one for unlawful detainer. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the petition, and those allegations plainly convey an application for a writ of possession. Unlawful detainer requires the expiration or termination of a right to possess by virtue of a contract, express or implied, and no such contract exists here. The petition was an offshoot of the final judgment confirming the tax sale and the buyer's ownership.

On the third issue, the Court held that the buyer established its right. It attached the confirmation decision, the entry of final judgment, the tax declaration, and the demand letter. The Court emphasized that a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title, and that its issuance is a ministerial duty once proof of title has been established. After consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure to redeem, entitlement to the writ becomes a matter of right, whether the title derives from an execution sale, a foreclosure sale, or a tax delinquency sale. The petitioner never questioned the validity of the public sale or of the buyer's title, so the trial court had no discretion but to issue the writ.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the decision sufficiently stated the facts and the law. Courts may synthesize and simplify their pronouncements given heavy dockets, and so long as the decision clearly states the facts and law and leaves the parties in no doubt, the Constitution is not violated.

Doctrine

First, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession as a result of a tax sale, because Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree confers on it exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such petitions.

Second, the nature of an action and the court that has jurisdiction over it are determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition, not by the defenses raised. Where no contract, express or implied, exists, there can be no unlawful detainer.

Third, a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title, and its issuance is a ministerial duty once proof of title has been established. After consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure to redeem, entitlement to the writ is a matter of right, and this applies equally to titles derived from execution sales, foreclosure sales, and tax delinquency sales.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the trial court's decision and order granting the writ of possession in favor of Inocentes Realty and Sales Corporation, and also denied the prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title, and its issuance is a ministerial duty once proof of title has been established. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over writs of possession arising from tax sales and the rule that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the petition.