In the case of Cabling v. Lumapas, the Supreme Court clarified when a court must issue a writ of possession in foreclosure cases. The Court ruled that while issuing a writ of possession is typically a ministerial duty after a foreclosure sale, this obligation ceases when a third party holds the property with a claim of adverse right independent of the original debtor/mortgagor. This means that if someone possesses the property under their own right—not just as a successor to the debtor’s rights—the court must first determine the nature of that possession before issuing the writ.

Foreclosure Showdown: When Does a Buyer’s Claim Trump a Third-Party’s Possession?

The case revolves around a property in Olongapo City that was sold at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale to Helen Cabling, who then sought a writ of possession to take control of the property. However, Joselin Tan Lumapas, a third party, intervened, claiming she had prior rights to the property through a conditional sale agreement with the original owner, Aida Ibabao. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted Cabling’s application for a writ of possession, but later recalled it upon Lumapas’s motion, asserting that the writ could not be enforced against a third party in actual possession who was not in privity with the debtor/mortgagor. Cabling then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The central legal question is whether Lumapas’s possession, based on a conditional sale, qualifies as an adverse right that prevents the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession to Cabling.

In analyzing this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the general rule regarding the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosures. It reiterated that under Act No. 3135, as amended, the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court after the foreclosure sale and during the redemption period. This means that upon the filing of an ex parte motion and the approval of a bond, the court must issue the writ. The Court also noted that after the lapse of the redemption period, the writ of possession issues as a matter of course, without the need for a bond or a separate action, especially after the consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the purchaser’s name. This principle is designed to provide a swift and efficient means for the purchaser to gain possession of the foreclosed property.

However, the Court acknowledged an important exception to this rule, as outlined in Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is applicable to extrajudicial foreclosures. This provision states that the possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser unless a third party is actually holding the property in a capacity adverse to the judgment obligor. The key issue, therefore, is determining what constitutes an “adverse” possession that would prevent the issuance of a writ of possession. According to the Supreme Court, the exception applies when a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as a co-owner, tenant, or usufructuary, who possesses the property in his own right and is not merely a successor or transferee of the right of possession of the original owner.

The Court then turned its attention to the specific facts of the case to determine whether Lumapas’s possession qualified as “adverse” under the legal definition. It noted that Lumapas’s claim to the property was based on a Deed of Conditional Sale with the original owner, Ibabao. The Court emphasized that a conditional sale does not immediately transfer title to the buyer; ownership remains with the seller until the fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition, typically the full payment of the purchase price. In this instance, the Deed of Conditional Sale explicitly reserved ownership to Ibabao until full payment of the P2.2 million purchase price, even though the property had been delivered to Lumapas. Since no deed of absolute sale had been executed in Lumapas’s favor, her possession could not be considered as possession in the concept of an owner.

Under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is made applicable to extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate mortgages, the possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor.

In its decision, the Supreme Court quoted the relevant provision of Section 33, emphasizing that the key criterion is whether a third party is “actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor.” The Court clarified that for possession to be considered adverse, the third party must demonstrate a right that is independent of, and even superior to, that of the judgment debtor/mortgagor.

To further illustrate the concept of adverse possession, the Court referred to its previous ruling in China Banking Corp. v. Sps. Lozada, which clarified that the exception under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary, who possesses the property in his own right, and is not merely the successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-owner or the owner of the property.

Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument
Argued that the case does not fall under the exception to the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession.	Claimed actual possession of the subject property, asserting that such possession is adverse to the judgment debtor/mortgagor.
Contended that the respondent’s possession is not in the concept of an owner because ownership is retained by the seller until full payment in a conditional sale.	Asserted rights to the property based on a Deed of Conditional Sale, claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Lumapas’s possession, based on a conditional sale where ownership remained with the seller until full payment, did not constitute the kind of adverse possession that would prevent the issuance of a writ of possession to Cabling. Therefore, the Court reversed the CA’s decision and ordered the RTC to issue the writ of possession in favor of Cabling, solidifying the purchaser’s right to possess the foreclosed property.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a third party’s possession of a foreclosed property, based on a conditional sale agreement, constitutes an adverse right that prevents the issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser in the foreclosure sale.
What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order directing the sheriff to place someone in possession of a property, whether real or personal. In foreclosure cases, it allows the purchaser to take control of the foreclosed property.
When is the issuance of a writ of possession considered ministerial?	The issuance is ministerial after a foreclosure sale and during the redemption period, upon filing an ex parte motion and approval of a bond. It is also ministerial after the redemption period lapses, ownership is consolidated, and a new title is issued to the purchaser.
What is the exception to the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession?	The exception applies when a third party holds the property with a claim of adverse right independent of the original debtor/mortgagor, such as a co-owner, tenant, or usufructuary possessing the property in their own right.
What is a conditional sale?	A conditional sale is a contract where the seller retains ownership of the property until the buyer fulfills a condition, typically the full payment of the purchase price.
How did the Court define “adverse possession” in this context?	The Court clarified that “adverse possession” must be based on a right independent of, and even superior to, that of the judgment debtor/mortgagor, such as a co-ownership, tenancy, or usufructuary right.
What was the basis of the third party’s claim in this case?	The third party, Joselin Tan Lumapas, claimed possession based on a Deed of Conditional Sale with the original owner, Aida Ibabao.
Why did the Court rule against the third party’s claim?	The Court ruled that because the Deed of Conditional Sale reserved ownership to the seller until full payment and no deed of absolute sale had been executed, Lumapas’s possession did not constitute adverse possession in the legal sense.

The Cabling v. Lumapas case clarifies the rights of purchasers in foreclosure sales and the limitations on third-party claims to the foreclosed property. It underscores the importance of establishing clear and independent rights to property to successfully resist a writ of possession. This ruling ensures a smoother process for purchasers while protecting the legitimate rights of third parties with valid, independent claims.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cabling v. Lumapas, G.R. No. 196950, June 18, 2014