Property Disputes and Surveys: Why Courts Order Relocation Surveys in Writ of Possession Cases

When a bank forecloses on a property and obtains a writ of possession, the sheriff must enforce it on the exact parcel described in the title. But what happens when two adjacent lots, once owned by the same person, are confused because they sit on the boundary between two cities? The Supreme Court recently addressed this in Mascarinas v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (G.R. No. 228138, August 27, 2020), a case that underscores the importance of a relocation survey in preventing a grave miscarriage of justice.

The Dispute

The case began when BPI Family Savings Bank foreclosed a real estate mortgage over Lot 3-30-C-2, covered by TCT No. N-266377, located in Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court issued a writ of possession in the bank's favor. But when the sheriff tried to serve the notice to vacate, the occupant, Remedios Mascarinas, claimed the writ was being enforced on the wrong lot.

Mascarinas said she owned the adjacent Lot 3-30-C-1, covered by TCT No. T-142901, in Caloocan City. Both lots were previously owned by the same mortgagor, Josephine Abila, and both lie along the boundary of Quezon City and Caloocan City. Mascarinas moved to quash the writ and asked the court to order a survey of both lots to determine their exact locations.

The trial court denied her motion, noting that the two titles bore different technical descriptions. The Court of Appeals later dismissed her petition for certiorari on procedural grounds—her counsel had filed a motion for extension beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed. It held that while the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari is strict, the Court may relax the rules when strict application would cause irreparable damage or grave injustice. Here, Mascarinas faced the real possibility of losing her 1,552-square-meter property due to an erroneous implementation of the writ. The Court admitted her petition and resolved the case on the merits.

The Importance of a Relocation Survey

The Court then addressed the substantive issue: whether a survey of both lots was necessary. It ruled yes.

The two lots were adjacent, previously owned by the same person, and located along a city boundary. The parties had conflicting claims about where each lot actually sat. The bank insisted its lot was the one Mascarinas occupied; she claimed the bank's lot had become part of a public street. Given these conflicting claims, the Court found that a survey was indispensable to ensure the writ was enforced on the correct property.

The Court ordered the trial court to appoint a surveyor to conduct a relocation survey of both lots, with each party bearing the survey fees for their respective properties.

Practical Takeaways

• Titles alone may not settle boundary disputes. Two titles with different technical descriptions can still be confused on the ground, especially when lots are adjacent and share a common origin.
• A relocation survey is the definitive tool. When parties dispute the physical location of a property, a court-ordered survey by a licensed geodetic engineer can resolve the matter once and for all.
• Writs of possession must be enforced on the correct parcel. A sheriff enforcing a writ on the wrong property can cause irreparable harm, which courts will act to prevent.
• Procedural rules may be relaxed to prevent grave injustice. The 60-day rule for certiorari is strict, but courts may admit a late petition when the merits clearly show a risk of substantial injustice.
• Act promptly to protect property rights. A party who believes a writ is being enforced on their property should immediately move to quash the writ and request a survey, as Mascarinas did.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.