Search for books, audiobooks, sheet music and more...

Upload EN

Trusted by over 1 million members

Home

0 0 RELATED TITLES
0 views
Saved

Dayot vs Shell
Bestsellers Uploaded by Sachuzen23 on Aug 06,
2018

Books Digest Full description

Somodio Vs Cases Property Ate Pat 2

Audiobooks
Save Embed Share Print

Magazines
Download Search document

Documents

Sheet Music

CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT vs SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY,6(PHILS.), INC6

G.R. NO. 156542, June 26, 2007

Facts:

Panay Railways, Inc. (PRI) executed a real estate mortgage contract over six parcels of land
for purposes of securing its loan obligations to TRB. As a consequence, the mortgaged
properties were foreclosed and sold at public auction to TRB as the highest bidder. PRI failed
to redeem the foreclosed properties. Hence, TRB consolidated its ownership over the subject
parcels of land

TRB filed a Petition for Writ of Possession with the RTC. However, the writ was not fully
implemented.*
TRB sold to spouses Edmundo and Candelaria Dayot (Spouses Dayot), by virtue of a Deed
of Absolute Sale, five parcels of land.

Subsequently, Candelaria Dayot (petitioner) filed a Supplemental Pleading before the RTC
of Iloilo City, praying that she, being the transferee of all the rights and interests of TRB over
the parcels of land subject of the Petition for Writ of Possession filed by the latter, be
substituted as the new petitioner in LRC CAD. REC. NOS. 1 and 9616, and that an alias writ
of possession be issued in her favor.

The spouses Dayot filed with the RTC of Iloilo City, a complaint This document
for Recovery is...
of Ownership
andRead
Possession, Annulment of Documents,
books, audiobooks, and more Cancellation of Titles, Reconveyance and
Related titles
Damages against TRB, Petron Corporation (Petron) and herein
Scribd
Useful
respondent ShellNot useful
Chemical
Company (Phil.),
½
Inc. (Shell), praying that Shell View
be directed to vacate the portion of Lot No.
6153 which it actually possesses
GET — On the App Store and for both Petron and Shell to surrender ownership and
possession of portions of parcels of lands covered separately by TCT Nos. T-47484 and
T-94116.

Issue:

Whether or not Shell Chemical be ejected from the subject property which they possess by
virtue of a ex parte writ of possession issued by the court.

Ruling:
NO. The Court finds that under applicable laws and jurisprudence, respondent cannot be
ejected from the property by means of an ex-parte writ of possession.

Article 433 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of
Somodioownership.
Vs Cases Property Ate Pat 2018 cases on credit
The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
24. Anchor
transactions… Savings v.…
Under the aforequoted provision, one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by
(jan2010- Pinzman Rea
another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term judicial
process could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reivindicatory dec2011)
action, in which the
ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated. In the
present case, petitioner had already complied with this procedure by filing Civil Case No.
21957.

The ex-parte petition for issuance of a possessory writ filed by petitioner's predecessor, TRB,
in LRC CAD. REC. NOS. 1 and 9616, strictly speaking, is not the kind of judicial process
contemplated above. Even if the same may be considered a judicial proceeding for the
enforcement of ones right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale, it is not an
ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues another for the enforcement or protection
of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.*

You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial. Download
Page 2 is not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial

The second paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court relating to the right of
possession of a purchaser of property in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale provides:

Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom
executed or given.

xxx

Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be
substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the
property at the time of levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or
last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property
adversely to the judgment obligor.

Thus, in Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court , this Court held that the obligation of a
court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure
sale of a mortgaged
The second paragraphproperty ceases
of Section 33, to be ministerial
Rule once it
39, of the Rules ofisCourt
shown that there
relating to theis right
a third
of
party in possession of the property who is claiming a right adv erse to that of
possession of a purchaser of property in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale provides: the mortgagor
and that such third party is a stranger to the foreclosure proceedings in which the ex-parte
writ
Sec. of possession
33. Deed andwas applied for.
possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom
executed or given.
As such, a third person in possession of an extra-judicially foreclosed property, who
claims a right superior to that of the original mortgagor, is thus given no opportunity to
xxx
be heard in his claim. It stands to reason, therefore, that such third person may not be
dispossessed on the strength
Upon the expiration of the rightof a mere ex-parte possessory
of redemption, the purchaserwrit,orsince to do so would
redemptioner shall be
be
tantamount
substituted totoand hisacquire
summary ejectment,
all the in violation
rights, title, of the
interest and basic
claim tenets
of the of due obligor
judgment process.to the
property at the time of levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or
In
lastthe case at bar,byitthe
redemptioner is not
samedisputed that herein
officer unless respondent
a third had beenholding
party is actually in possession of the
the property
subject
adversely lotstosince
the judgment You're Reading a Preview
1975 and that it has in its premises bulk plant and fuel storage facilities for
obligor.
the purpose of conducting its business. In this respect, the Court agrees with the findings of
the
Thus, CAin that petitioner
Barican had knowledge
v. Intermed iate Appellate of Court
respondent's prior held
, this Court possession
that theof the disputed
obligation of a
properties.
court to issueYet,a instead
writ of of Unlockin
pursuing
possession full
Civil access
Action
favor of the with
No. a free
21957
purchaser in trial.
where anrespondent willforeclosure
extra-judicial be given a
chance
sale of atomortgaged
substantiate its claim
property of ownership,
ceases petitioner
to be ministerial oncestill
it insists
is shown on that
obtaining
there isa writ of
a third
possession pursuantoftotheitsproperty
party in possession allegedwho rightis as purchaser
claiming of adv
a right the erse
properties which
to that of had been
the mortgagor
extra-judicially
and that such third
the writ against
foreclosed.
herein
Download With Free Trial
party is The
respondent,
writ of possession was applied for.
Court cannot
a stranger
an unwitting
sanction this
to the foreclosure
third party
proceduralinshortcut.
proceedings
possessor who
which the
took no
Toex-parte
enforce
part in the
foreclosure proceedings, would be tantamount to the taking of real property without the
As such,
benefit of aproper
third judicial
person intervention.
in possession of e,
Henc anitextra-judicially
was not a ministerialforeclosed
duty ofproperty, who
the trial court
claimsAct
under a right
No. superior to that
3135 to issue of the
a writ oforiginal
possessionmortgagor, is thusofgiven
for the ouster no opportunity
respondent from the tolot
be heard in his claim. It stands to reason, therefore, that such third
subject of this instant case, particularly in light of the latter's opposition and claim of person may not be
dispossessed
ownership andonrightful
the strength
possession of aofmere possessory writ, since to do so would be
ex-parteproperties.
the disputed
tantamount to his summary ejectment, in violation of the basic tenets of due process.

In the case at bar, it is not disputed that herein respondent had been in possession of the
subject lots since 1975 and that it has in its premises bulk plant and fuel storage facilities for
the purpose of conducting its business. In this respect, the Court agrees with the findings of
the CA that petitioner had knowledge of respondent's prior possession of the disputed
properties. Yet, instead of pursuing Civil Action No. 21957 where respondent will be given a
chance to substantiate its claim of ownership, petitioner still insists on obtaining a writ of
possession pursuant to its alleged right as purchaser of the properties which had been
extra-judicially foreclosed. The Court cannot sanction this procedural shortcut. To enforce
the writ against herein respondent, an unwitting third party possessor who took no part in the
foreclosure proceedings, would be tantamount to the taking of real property without the
benefit of proper judicial intervention. Henc e, it was not a ministerial duty of the trial court
under Act No. 3135 to issue a writ of possession for the ouster of respondent from the lot
subject of this instant case, particularly in light of the latter's opposition and claim of
ownership and rightful possession of the disputed properties.

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Related Interests

Foreclosure Mortgage Law Ex Parte Lawsuit Politics

Documents Similar To Dayot vs Shell

Somodio Vs Cases Property Ate Pat 2018 cases on

UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY transacti
APR APR Patricia Felipe (jan2010-
UPLOADED
Michell

More From Sachuzen23

Heirs of Ochoa vs GS STATE INVESTMENT Aluad vs Aluad Case Dige

Transport HOUSE vs IAC.docx UPLOADED BY UPLOADED
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY Sachuzen23 Sachuz
Sachuzen23 Sachuzen23

ABOUT SUPPORT LEGAL

About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms

Press Accessibility Privacy

Our blog Purchase help Copyright

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gifts

Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English