Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 280 views

    Dayot Vs Shell

    Uploaded by

    Sachuzen23
    1) Panay Railways mortgaged six parcels of land to secure a loan from TRB. When Panay failed to repay the loan, TRB foreclosed on the property and became the new owner. 2) TRB then sold five of the parcels to the Spouses Dayot. Dayot filed to recover ownership and possession of the lands, claiming Shell was occupying portions without right. 3) The Court ruled that Shell could not be ejected from the property via an ex-parte writ of possession, as they had been in possession since 1975 and were claiming ownership adverse to Dayot. Due process required that Shell's claims be adjudicated in a proper court proceeding before they could

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dayot Vs Shell

    Uploaded by

    Sachuzen23
    280 views2 pages
    1) Panay Railways mortgaged six parcels of land to secure a loan from TRB. When Panay failed to repay the loan, TRB foreclosed on the property and became the new owner. 2) TRB then sold five of the parcels to the Spouses Dayot. Dayot filed to recover ownership and possession of the lands, claiming Shell was occupying portions without right. 3) The Court ruled that Shell could not be ejected from the property via an ex-parte writ of possession, as they had been in possession since 1975 and were claiming ownership adverse to Dayot. Due process required that Shell's claims be adjudicated in a proper court proceeding before they could

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Dayot vs Shell

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Panay Railways mortgaged six parcels of land to secure a loan from TRB. When Panay failed to repay the loan, TRB foreclosed on the property and became the new owner. 2) TRB then sold five of the parcels to the Spouses Dayot. Dayot filed to recover ownership and possession of the lands, claiming Shell was occupying portions without right. 3) The Court ruled that Shell could not be ejected from the property via an ex-parte writ of possession, as they had been in possession since 1975 and were claiming ownership adverse to Dayot. Due process required that Shell's claims be adjudicated in a proper court proceeding before they could

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    280 views2 pages

    Dayot Vs Shell

    Uploaded by

    Sachuzen23
    1) Panay Railways mortgaged six parcels of land to secure a loan from TRB. When Panay failed to repay the loan, TRB foreclosed on the property and became the new owner. 2) TRB then sold five of the parcels to the Spouses Dayot. Dayot filed to recover ownership and possession of the lands, claiming Shell was occupying portions without right. 3) The Court ruled that Shell could not be ejected from the property via an ex-parte writ of possession, as they had been in possession since 1975 and were claiming ownership adverse to Dayot. Due process required that Shell's claims be adjudicated in a proper court proceeding before they could

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT vs SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
(PHILS.

    ), INC


    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 for Recovery of Ownership
    and Possession, Annulment of Documents, Cancellation of Titles, Reconveyance and
    Damages against TRB, Petron Corporation (Petron) and herein respondent Shell Chemical
    Company (Phil.), Inc. (Shell), praying that Shell be directed to vacate the portion of Lot No.
    6153 which it actually possesses 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
    ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.

    Under the aforequoted provision, one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by
    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 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.

    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 property ceases to be ministerial once it is shown that there is a third
    party in possession of the property who is claiming a right adverse to that of the mortgagor
    and that such third party is a stranger to the foreclosure proceedings in which the ex-parte
    writ of possession was applied for.

    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
    be heard in his claim. It stands to reason, therefore, that such third person may not be
    dispossessed on the strength of a mere ex-parte possessory writ, since to do so would be
    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. Hence, 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.

    You might also like