Writ of Possession After Tax Delinquency Sale: No Forum Shopping Certification Required

The Supreme Court has settled a practical question for buyers of tax-delinquent properties: when seeking a writ of possession after a tax delinquency sale, the buyer does not need to submit a certification against forum shopping. In De Guzman v. Chico (G.R. No. 195445, December 7, 2016), the Court explained that a petition for a writ of possession is merely an incident in the transfer of title, not a new lawsuit. The ruling gives clarity to purchasers at tax auctions and reaffirms that ownership, once consolidated, carries with it the right to possession.

What Happened in This Case

The property in dispute was a parcel of land in Makati City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 164900, originally registered under the petitioners' names. In May 2006, the City Government of Makati sold the property at public auction for tax delinquency under Sections 254 to 260 of the Local Government Code. The respondent, Gloria Chico, was the winning bidder and received a Certificate of Sale.

The petitioners failed to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period. In July 2007, Chico filed an application for a new certificate of title under Section 75 in relation to Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree). The Regional Trial Court granted the application in December 2007, and a new title was issued in Chico's name.

Later, Chico filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession in the same court. The trial court granted it. The petitioners opposed, arguing that the petition lacked a proper certification against forum shopping and that the proceedings were void.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether an ex parte petition for a writ of possession, filed after a tax delinquency sale, requires a certification against forum shopping under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

The petitioners also argued that Chico should have filed an action for accion reivindicatoria (a recovery-of-ownership suit) instead of a summary petition for a writ of possession.

The Ruling: No Certification Required

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that an ex parte petition for a writ of possession is not a complaint or other initiatory pleading that requires a certification against forum shopping.

Citing Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that what distinguishes a motion from a petition is not its form or title, but its purpose. A petition for a writ of possession does not initiate new litigation; it arises as an incident or consequence of the original registration proceedings. The requirement for a forum shopping certification is therefore dispensed with.

The Court also rejected the petitioners' narrow view that only cases under Act No. 3135 (governing extrajudicial foreclosure sales) are excused from the certification requirement. The Court noted that a writ of possession may be issued in various instances—land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosure, extrajudicial foreclosure, and execution sales—and there is no law or jurisprudence making the requirement depend on the nature of the underlying proceeding.

The Right to Possess Follows Ownership

The Court likewise rejected the argument that Chico should have filed an action for accion reivindicatoria. The cases the petitioners cited (Factor, Serra Serra, and Maglente) involved different situations—registration, reconstitution, and interpleader—not a tax delinquency sale.

The Court emphasized that the right to possess a property follows the right of ownership. Since Chico's title had been consolidated and a new certificate of title issued in her name, and that judgment had become final and executory, she was entitled to the writ of possession. Citing Cloma v. Court of Appeals, the Court noted that Section 2 of PD 1529 gives courts jurisdiction over petitions filed after original registration, including those arising from tax sales.

The Court also distinguished Republic v. City of Mandaluyong, where the writ was premature because the validity of the auction sale itself was still being contested. Here, no such impediment existed—the title had long been consolidated and the judgment was final.

Practical Takeaways

• No certification needed. A petition for a writ of possession, even after a tax delinquency sale, is not an initiatory pleading. It does not require a certification against forum shopping.
• Writ is an incident, not a separate suit. The writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title. It is not a judgment on the merits but a means to enforce the buyer's right to possession as an incident of ownership.
• Ownership is the key. Once the redemption period expires and a final deed is issued, the buyer's ownership is consolidated. The right to possess follows automatically.
• Final judgments bind. A final and executory judgment confirming ownership cannot be collaterally attacked. It can only be nullified through a petition for relief or annulment of judgment under Rules 38 or 47 of the Rules of Court.
• Timing matters. A writ of possession may be premature if the validity of the tax sale itself is still pending. But once title is consolidated and the decision is final, the writ should issue.

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