G.R. No. L-78775 - MAY 1988 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-78775May 31, 1988Jose Unchuan vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-80774May 31, 1988San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-24842May 31, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Cardenas G.R. No. L-36480May 31, 1988Andrew Palermo vs. Pyramid Insurance Company, Inc G.R. No. L-36773May 31, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, et al. G.R. No. L-54290May 31, 1988Don Pepe Henson Enterprises, et al. vs. Irineo Pangilinan, et al. G.R. No. L-57650May 31, 1988Catalino Y. Tinga vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-59801May 31, 1988Leonor P. Fernandez vs. Francis J. Militante G.R. No. L-67948May 31, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Napoleon Montealegre G.R. No. L-81805May 31, 1988Var-Orient Shipping Company, Inc. vs. Tomas D. Achacoso G.R. No. L-82330May 31, 1988The Dial Corporation, et al. vs. Clemente M. Soriano G.R. No. L-82568May 31, 1988Alfredo R.A. Bengzon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-38303May 30, 1988Hongkong & Shanghai Bank. Corporation vs. Ralph Pauli G.R. No. L-43866May 30, 1988Petronio Collado, et al. vs. J. Harold M. Hernando , et al. G.R. No. L-48757May 30, 1988Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-67158-62May 30, 1988CLLC E.G. Gochangco Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-46188May 28, 1988Helena Almazar vs. Pedro D. Cenzon, et al. G.R. No. L-46556May 28, 1988Napoleon O. Carin vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-51101May 28, 1988Rufino Nazareth vs. Renato S. Santos G.R. No. L-53650May 28, 1988Virginia M. Ramos vs. Abdulwahid A. Bidin, et al. G.R. No. L-56362May 28, 1988Tomasita Aquino vs. Pedro T. Santiago, et al. G.R. No. L-56429May 28, 1988Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Fidel Purisima, et al. G.R. No. L-58997May 28, 1988Marcelino Tiburcio vs. J. Jose P. Castro G.R. No. L-60937May 28, 1988Walter Ascona Lee vs. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr G.R. No. L-61223May 28, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Conrado L. Mercado G.R. No. L-61464May 28, 1988Ba Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-66884May 28, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Temblor G.R. No. L-77047May 28, 1988Joaquina R-Infante De Aranz, et al. vs. J. Nicolas Galing, et al. G.R. No. L-64349May 27, 1988Carlos Carpio vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-36007May 25, 1988Fernando Gallardo vs. Juan Borromeo G.R. No. L-61093May 25, 1988Eligio P. Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-65483May 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Silvino T. Villanueva G.R. No. L-74451May 25, 1988Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-77859May 25, 1988Century Textile Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-30751May 24, 1988Philippine National Bank vs. Gen. Acceptance and Finance Corporation G.R. No. L-38570May 24, 1988Domingo Padua vs. Vicente Ericta, et al. G.R. No. L-57145May 24, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Valentin Atutubo G.R. No. L-66575May 24, 1988Adriano Maneclang, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-71909May 24, 1988Jane Lecaros, et al. vs. Carmen Lecaros G.R. No. L-80066May 24, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Maximiano Asuncion G.R. No. L-37409May 23, 1988Nicolas Valisno vs. Felipe Adriano G.R. No. L-47414May 23, 1988Eliodoro T. Iscala vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-71863May 23, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Policarpio Khan G.R. No. L-73491May 23, 1988Concepcion B. Tupue vs. Jose Urgel, et al. G.R. No. L-74907May 23, 1988Pedro S. Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-76258May 23, 1988Juanito S. Amandy vs. the People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-79010May 23, 1988Generoso Cortes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-50242May 21, 1988E. Razon, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-53966May 21, 1988Jose B. Yusay, et al. vs. Teresita Y. Ramos G.R. No. L-60487May 21, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-72069-70May 21, 1988Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Lovsted & Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-77465May 21, 1988Uy Tong vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-78343May 21, 1988Heirs of Ricardo Olivas vs. Florentino A. Flor G.R. No. L-58652May 20, 1988Alfredo B. Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan A.C. No. 3153May 17, 1988Juanito L. Haw Tay vs. Atty. Eduardo Singayao G.R. No. L-47379May 16, 1988National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-53873May 13, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo C. Laya A.M. No. R-6-RTJMay 11, 1988Pelagio Sicat vs. Judge Fernando S. Alcantara, et al. G.R. No. L-38426May 11, 1988Pedro De Villa vs. Ismael Mathay, Sr. G.R. No. L-48848May 11, 1988Federation of Free Workers vs. J. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-48889May 11, 1988Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Midpaintao L. Adil G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988Jose B. Sarmiento vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-79644May 11, 1988Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC.May 9, 1988The Court Administrator vs. Ricardo M. Magtibay G.R. No. L-30964May 9, 1988Sy Chie vs. Federacion Obrera De La Industria Y Otros Trabajadores De Filipinas (FOITAF) G.R. No. L-43825May 9, 1988Continental Marble Corp vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-46303May 9, 1988Vicente S. Umali vs. Hon. Jorge Coquia G.R. No. L-47968May 9, 1988Lina Montilla vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48064May 9,1988Anthony Powers vs. Donald I. Marshall G.R. No. L-49893May 9, 1988Daniel C. Aspacio vs. Amado Inciong, et al. G.R. No. L-51278May 9, 1988Heirs of Ramon Pizarro, Sr. vs. Francisco Z. Consolacion G.R. No. L-54090May 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Abraham P. Seranilla G.R. No. L-56505May 9, 1988Maximo Pleno vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-56923May 9, 1988Ramon J. Alegre vs. Manuel T. Reyes G.R. No. L-57061May 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Manguigin Macatana G.R. No. L-57280May 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal G.R. No. L-77227May 9, 1988Commander Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-78604May 9, 1988Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-81190May 9, 1988Matias B. Aznar III vs. Juanito A. Bernad G.R. No. L-68940May 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Mateo Abagon, et al. G.R. No. L-53907May 6, 1988Mod. Fish. Gear Labor Union vs. Carmelo C. Noriel G.R. Nos. L-57719-21May 6, 1988Wilfredo David vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-76595May 6, 1988Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-53984May 5, 1988Pablo Mayor vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-70987May 5, 1988Gregorio Y. Limpin, Jr vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-78605May 5, 1988National Power Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-39272May 4, 1988Eugenia S. De Medina vs. Fernando A. Cruz G.R. No. L-66183May 4, 1988Ricardo O. Montinola, Jr vs. Republic Planters Bank G.R. No. L-67451May 4, 1988Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-74410May 4, 1988Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-43446May 3, 1988Fil. Pipe and Foundry Corporation vs. Nat. Waterworks and Sew. Auth. G.R. No. L-76353May 2, 1988Sophia Alcuaz vs. Philippines School of Business Adm. G.R. No. L-47717May 2, 1988Ignacio Pascua, et al. vs. Heirs of Segundo Simeon, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jose Unchuan vs. Court of AppealsSan Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionRepublic of the Philippines vs. Alejandro CardenasAndrew Palermo vs. Pyramid Insurance Company, IncRepublic of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, et al.Don Pepe Henson Enterprises, et al. vs. Irineo Pangilinan, et al.Catalino Y. Tinga vs. People of the PhilippinesLeonor P. Fernandez vs. Francis J. MilitantePeople of the Philippines vs. Napoleon MontealegreVar-Orient Shipping Company, Inc. vs. Tomas D. AchacosoThe Dial Corporation, et al. vs. Clemente M. SorianoAlfredo R.A. Bengzon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Hongkong & Shanghai Bank. Corporation vs. Ralph PauliPetronio Collado, et al. vs. J. Harold M. Hernando , et al.Mauro Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, et al.CLLC E.G. Gochangco Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations CommissionHelena Almazar vs. Pedro D. Cenzon, et al.Napoleon O. Carin vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Rufino Nazareth vs. Renato S. SantosVirginia M. Ramos vs. Abdulwahid A. Bidin, et al.Tomasita Aquino vs. Pedro T. Santiago, et al.Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Fidel Purisima, et al.Marcelino Tiburcio vs. J. Jose P. CastroWalter Ascona Lee vs. Manuel V. Romillo, JrPeople of the Philippines vs. Conrado L. MercadoBa Finance Corporation vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Vicente TemblorJoaquina R-Infante De Aranz, et al. vs. J. Nicolas Galing, et al.Carlos Carpio vs. People of the PhilippinesFernando Gallardo vs. Juan BorromeoEligio P. Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Silvino T. VillanuevaEquitable Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtCentury Textile Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPhilippine National Bank vs. Gen. Acceptance and Finance CorporationDomingo Padua vs. Vicente Ericta, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Valentin AtutuboAdriano Maneclang, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Jane Lecaros, et al. vs. Carmen LecarosPeople of the Philippines vs. Maximiano AsuncionNicolas Valisno vs. Felipe AdrianoEliodoro T. Iscala vs. Republic of the PhilippinesPeople of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Policarpio KhanConcepcion B. Tupue vs. Jose Urgel, et al.Pedro S. Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJuanito S. Amandy vs. the People of the PhilippinesGeneroso Cortes vs. Court of AppealsE. Razon, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsJose B. Yusay, et al. vs. Teresita Y. RamosRepublic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Lovsted & Company, Inc.Uy Tong vs. Court of AppealsHeirs of Ricardo Olivas vs. Florentino A. FlorAlfredo B. Rodillas vs. SandiganbayanJuanito L. Haw Tay vs. Atty. Eduardo SingayaoNational Power Corporation vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Alfredo C. LayaPelagio Sicat vs. Judge Fernando S. Alcantara, et al.Pedro De Villa vs. Ismael Mathay, Sr.Federation of Free Workers vs. J. Amado G. InciongDevelopment Bank of the Philippines vs. Midpaintao L. AdilJose B. Sarmiento vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. Court of AppealsThe Court Administrator vs. Ricardo M. MagtibaySy Chie vs. Federacion Obrera De La Industria Y Otros Trabajadores De Filipinas (FOITAF)Continental Marble Corp vs. National Labor Relations CommissionVicente S. Umali vs. Hon. Jorge CoquiaLina Montilla vs. Court of AppealsAnthony Powers vs. Donald I. MarshallDaniel C. Aspacio vs. Amado Inciong, et al.Heirs of Ramon Pizarro, Sr. vs. Francisco Z. ConsolacionPeople of the Philippines vs. Abraham P. SeranillaMaximo Pleno vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Ramon J. Alegre vs. Manuel T. ReyesPeople of the Philippines vs. Manguigin MacatanaPeople of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of RizalCommander Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionMatias B. Aznar III vs. Juanito A. BernadPeople of the Philippines vs. Mateo Abagon, et al.Mod. Fish. Gear Labor Union vs. Carmelo C. NorielWilfredo David vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPablo Mayor vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtGregorio Y. Limpin, Jr vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtNational Power Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.Eugenia S. De Medina vs. Fernando A. CruzRicardo O. Montinola, Jr vs. Republic Planters BankRealty Sales Enterprise, Inc vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtRealty Sales Enterprise, Inc vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtFil. Pipe and Foundry Corporation vs. Nat. Waterworks and Sew. Auth.Sophia Alcuaz vs. Philippines School of Business Adm.Ignacio Pascua, et al. vs. Heirs of Segundo Simeon, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. L-78775 May 31, 1988
JOSE UNCHUAN,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, (Fifth Division), HON. SENEN G. PENARANDA, Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, 10th Judicial Region, Cagayan de Oro City, ATTY. REXEL PACURIBOT or his Deputies, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL & PHILIPPINE BANKING CORP.,respondents.
Quimpo, Willkom, Reyes, De la Serna & Acebido Law Ofices for petitioner.
Virgilio J. Cabanlet for respondents.
CORTES,J.:
On November 3, 1976, Flora Jaldon, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Manuel Jaldon, Jr., mortgaged a parcel of land located in Cagayan De Oro City, containing an area of 184 square meters, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-7564, to the Philippine Banking Corp. On December 10, 1976, petitioner Unchuan, claiming to be the owner of one-half of the mortgaged property, caused to be ;annotated on the title an adverse claim. The annotation reads:
Entry No. 52445—Affidavit of Adverse Claim executed by Jose Unchilan claiming 1/2 portion of land embraced in this TCT by virtue of averbal agreementand further evidence(d) by official receipt of her advances covering the consideration of the aforesaid portion.... (Emphasis supplied)
Subsequently, the Philippine Banking Corporation extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage over the property and in the public sale, the bank was the highest bidder. As the property was not redeemed within the reglementary period, a deed of final conveyance was executed, and accordingly, TCT No. 43346 was issued to the bank. Unchuan's adverse claim had not been cancelled; hence, it was carried over to TCT No. 43346.
On March 18, 1985, Faustino Neri, Jr. caused to be annotated on the title a Notice of Lis Pendens, which, however, was subsequently cancelled after he executed a release of claim on January 30, 1986.
On May 14, 1986, the bank filed a petition for the cancellation of the annotations on its title and for the issuance of a writ of possession. Named respondents were Unchuan and Faustino Neri, Jr. Unchuan filed an opposition to the petition. In his affirmative and special defenses, Unchuan again raised his claim of ownership to the 1/2 portion of the lot in question. Annex "A" to the Opposition is a photocopy of what is claimed to be a receipt issued by Flora Jaldon, dated May 28, 1973, which states:
May 28, 1973
Received from Jose T. Unchuan, half owner of the lot at Pabayo St., formerly owned by Aquileo Yamut, the sum of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P 200.00) to be applied as payment of 1/2 of land taxes of abovementioned lot, which was sold to him previously and full payment hereby acknowledged fully received by me.
Flora Y. Jaldon
Hearing was set several times. On July 16, 1986, notice was sent setting the hearing for August 19, 1986, but due to the failure of Unchuan's counsel to appear, said hearing had to be reset for September 2, 1986. The hearing set for September 2, 1986 had to be reset again for September 23,1986 upon motion of counsel for Unchuan. Finally, on September 23, 1986, hearing proceeded as scheduled andthe case was submitted for resolution upon agreement of the parties. however, on September 25, 1986, Unchuan filed a manifestation praying for the dismissal/suspension of the petition for writ of possession on the ground that he had filed an action for quieting of title on the property, Attached to the manifestation was a copy of Unchuan's complaint in Civil Case No. 10770 for "Quieting of Title, Ownership, Annulment of Deed of Mortgage, Foreclosure Proceedings and TCT No. 43346." The complaint alleged in part:
3. That (Unchuan) acquired ownership of his one-half (1/2) portion of the above-described property by purchase from Flora Y. Jaldonlong before November 1976;
4. That immediately after (Unchuan) purchased one-half (1/2) portion of the aforementioned propertylong before November 1976,he immediately constructed two (2) semi-concrete residential buildings of strong materials and have resided thereon with his family continuously up to the present;
5. That from the time (Unchuan) purchased one-half (1/2) portion of the above-described property from Flora Y. Jaldon, he has been contributing one-half (1/2) of the taxes due to the government on said property;
6. That since the time (Unchuan) began to reside and live on his one-half (1/2) portion of said propertylong before November 3, 1976or for a period of more than ten (10) years, he has not been disturbed of his ownership and possession of the same;
On October 3, 1986 the trial court issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the bank. Unchuan brought a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which denied the petition for lack of merit. Hence, the present recourse.
The only issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of possession even without a full-blown trial to resolve the claim of Unchuan, and despite the pendency of the action to quiet title.
Extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages is governed by Act 3135, amended by Act No. 4118. Section 6 provides that in cases of extrajudicial sale, "redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act." Sections 464-466 of the Code of Civil Procedure were superseded by Sections 25-27 and Section 31 of the Rules of Court, which in turn were replaced by Sections 29-31 and Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. [IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corp. v. Nera, 125 Phil. 595 (1967),19 SCRA 181.]
Once the estate mortgaged is extrajudicially sold, and it is not redeemed within the reglementary period, no separate and independent action is necessary to obtain possession of the property. [Tan Soo Huat v. Ongkiko, 63 Phil. 746 (1936).<äre||anº•1àw>] The purchaser at the public auction only has to file a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 35.Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemotion period. By whom executed or given. —
x x x x x x x x x
... The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officerunless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.[Emphasis supplied].
Note, however, that a third party not privy to the debtor is protected by the law. He maybe ejected from the premises only after he has been given an opportunity to be heard, conformably with the time-honored principle of due process. "Where a parcel of land levied on execution is occupied by a party other than the judgment debtor, the proper procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the nature of said adverse possession." [Guevara et al. v. Ramos et al., G.R. No. L-24358, March 31, 1971, 38 SCRA 194; Saavedra et al. v. Siari Valley Estates, Inc., et al., 106 Phil. 432 (1959); Omana v. Gatulayao, 73 Phil. 66 (1941); Gozon v. Dela Rosa, 77 Phil. 919 (1947); Santiago v. Sheriff of Manila, 77 Phil 740 (1946).]
Even as Unchuan concedes that proceedings were held to determine the nature of his possession, he questions thesummarymanner by which his claim was resolved.
It is too late in the day for Unchuan to question the summary nature of the proceedings in the lower court. In the hearing of September 23, 1986, his counsel agreed to submit the case for resolution, even as on said date, all that he had submitted for consideration of the court was his Opposition to the Petition of Philippine Banking Corporation. He is now estopped from questioning the procedure adopted by the trial collaborated.
Moreover, there is nothing objectionable in the summary disposition of third-party claims. On several occasions, the Court had sanctioned summary proceedings to determine the nature of the possession of third-party claimants. [See Gozon v. Dela Rosa, supra; Saavedra v. Siari Valley Estates, Inc., et al.,supra; Planas and Verdon v. Madrigal and Co. et al., 94 Phil. 754 (1954).]
On the basis of the record of the case, the trial judge ruled in favor of Philippine Banking Corporation.ℒαwρhi৷This Tribunal has carefully gone over the record, and is convinced that there is sufficient basis warranting the issuance of a writ of possession.
The land involved is a Torrens-title property. It is basic that a person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title. He is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims which annotated on the title, for registration is the operative act that binds the property.
Unchuan claims that he purchased one-half (1/2) of the property "long before November 3, 1976." However, other than his bare allegation, the only proof he presented in court is a handwritten receipt for the payment of his contribution to realty taxes allegedly signed by Flora Jaldon. He has not bothered to prove the authenticity of the private writing, though. The alleged receipt does not even sufficiently identify the land subject of the sale to Unchuan to be the same land mortgaged and then sold to Philippine Banking Corporation. Also, for a transaction as important as the sale of a registered parcel of land; Unchuan has not even kept a record of precisely when he bought the property, except that it was "long before November 3, 1976," which incidentally is the day when Flora Jaldon mortgaged the property to Philippine Banking Corporation. Moreover, the sale was merely averbal agreement; hence, it could not be registered. All that Unchuan did was to file a belated adverse claim on December 10, 1976, after the property had been mortgaged to Philippine Banking Corporation. Note however, that since the filing of the adverse claim, Unchuan has done nothing to prosecute his claim of ownership over onehalf of the property. He has not, for instance, compelled Jaldon to execute the property instrument so that the sale could be registered (Assuming that the land was indeed sold to him) and the proper title issued in his name. In fact, the mortgage to the bank had been foreclosed, and a new title had been issued in the name of Philippine Banking Corporation, but all the Unchuan did was file an adverse claim.
The Civil Code provides that if the- Rame immovable property is sold to different vendees, "the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property" [Art. 1544, Civil Code.] Presidential Decree No. 1529 extends the protection given to an innocent purchaser for value to an innocent mortgagee. [Art 32, Pres. Decree No. 1529 (1978).] Thus grande that Unchuan indeed bought one-half of the property" long before November 3,1976," since he filed his adverse claim only after the land was mortgaged to the bank, the right of the bank to the property is superior to that of Unchuan.
There was no need for the trial court to await the outcome of Civil Case No. 10770. As in execution sales, proceedings incident to extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages to resolve the possession of third-party claimants may proceed independently of the action which said claimants may bring to enforce or protect their claim of ownership over the property. Thus, it was not error for the trial court to act upon the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession despite the pendency of Civil Case No. 10770 which raises a question of ownership. Needless to say, the order of the trial court directing the issuance of a writ of possession cannot prejudice the outcome of Civil Case No. 10770.
WHEREFORE,finding no reversible error in the order of the trial court as affirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition is herebyDENIED.Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.