You are on page 1of 3

ALARILLA V.

OCAMPO, 417 SCRA 601 (2003)



Facts: Spouses Isidro de Guzman and Andrea Enriquez were the owners of a
registered parcel of land, located in Pedro Gil, Paco, Manila. They thereafter
constructed a house thereon. The wife, Andrea, died and was survived by Isidro and
their daughter Rosario de Guzman, who was married to Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. They
then executed a REM over the property in favor of Spouses Reynaldo Ocampo and
Josephine Llave as security for the payment of their loan. Thereafter, Isidro died and
was survived by Rosario and her children with Alarilla, Sr.

When the spouses Alarilla Sr. failed to pay the loan despite demands, the Spouses
Ocampo filed a petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM with the Clerk of
Court of the RTC of Manila, who was also the Ex-Officio City Sheriff. The property
was sold at public auction with the Spouses Ocampo as the highest bidder for
P515,430.76. A certificate of sale was issued and registered with the City Register of
Deeds. And upon the failure to redeem the property, the Spouses Ocampo executed
an affidavit of consolidation of title and TCT was issued under their name.

Spouses Alarilla Sr. and the other petitioners, their children filed a complaint against
Spouses Ocampo and the Ex-Officio Sheriff with the RTC of Manila. (Allegations in
the complaint: 1) the property sold constituted a family home, 2) Isidro failed to
liquidate the family home after the death of his wife, which renders the REM
executed over the property null and void, 3) Alarilla spouses offered to redeem the
property before the lapse of the one-year redemption period, but the Ocampo
spouses refused to accept the same, 4) the sheriff sold the property for an amount in
excess of P401,162.96, hence the sale is null and void and 5) Alarilla et al offered to
redeem the property for the correct amount due but Ocampo spouses refused to
accept hence, the period for redemption had not yet expired.)

On November 27, 1995, Reynaldo Ocampo filed a petition for a writ of possession
with the RTC of Manila. And there was no opposition to the said petition. The court
then issued an order granting the petition and a writ of possession.

On the other hand, Alarilla Sr. filed a motion to set aside the order and to dismiss the
petition for a writ of possession. The court denied the motion. The petition was
appealed to the CA and was denied. Alarilla et al, received a copy of the CA decision
on March 3, 2000. On March 20, 2000, they filed an MR. MR was denied, and so they
filed a petition for review of the CA decision. (In their petition, Alarilla et al asserted
that the REM is null and void for failure to secure the conformity of the beneficiaries
of the family home and that they cannot be ousted from the property without the
Ocampo spouses filing an ordinary action for the recovery of possession.) CA held
that after the expiration of the redemption period and redemption was not made,
the writ must issue in order to place the buyer in possession of the foreclosed
property such right is absolute and may be obtained through a writ. In this case,
the property was not redeemed within the period and the Ocampo spouses had
already consolidated ownership over the property.


Hence, the petition for review on certiorari the decision of CA, affirming the issue of
a writ of possession and denying the motion of Alarilla Sr.



Issues:

1) Whether or not Alarilla et als MR of the CA decision was filed out of time.

2) Whether or not the petition should be granted.


Held: Held

1) NO. The MR was filed within the reglementary period therefor.

Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that where the last
day of the period for doing an act as provided by law falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or
a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time should not run until the
next working day.

In this case, Alarilla et al had until March 18, 2000 within which to file their MR of
the decision of the CA. Since March 18, 2000 was a Saturday, they had until March
20, 2000, the next working day thereafter, to file their motion. They filed their
motion on the said date; hence, the motion was filed within the reglementary period
therefor.

2) NO. The petition stands to fail on the merits.

The one-year period for Alarilla et al to redeem the mortgaged property had already
lapsed. A TCT was already issued under the name of Ocampo and as owner, they
are entitled to possession as a matter of right. There is no need for Ocampo to file an
action to evict Alarilla et al.

Also, any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot
be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession. Regardless of
whether or not there is a pending action for the nullification of the sale at the public
auction, or the foreclosure itself, or even for the nullification of the REM executed
over the property, Ocampo, as purchaser at the public auction, is entitled to a writ of
possession without prejudice to the outcome of the action filed by Alarilla et al with
the RTC of Manila. The writ of possession issued by the trial court must be enforced
without delay. It cannot be stymied or thwarted by Alarilla et al by raising issues
already raised by them in the civil case.


Lastly, Alarilla et al did not oppose the petition for a writ of possession filed by
Ocampo in the court a quo. Instead, they filed the complaint for the nullification of
the foreclosure proceedings, the sale at public auction and the nullification of the
TCT in the name of the Ocampo, with a plea for injunctive relief.