Topic PERIODS FOR PLEADING

Case No. G.R. No. 144697 December 10, 2003

Case Name Alarilla v Ocampo
Ponente CALLEJO, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
Spouses Isidro de Guzman and Andrea Enriquez owned in simple a parcel of land. They then built a house
thereon. Andrea died and was survived by Isidro and their daughter Rosario de Guzman married to Rodolfo
Alarilla. They executed a real estate mortgage (REM) over the property in favour of Sps Ocampo as security for a
loan. Isidro de Guzman died and was survived by Rosario and her children by Rodolfo Alarilla.

Mortgagors-debtors failed to pay the loan despite demands so Sps Ocampo filed a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of the REM with the Clerk of Court of RTC Manila who was the ex-officio City sheriff. Property was
sold at public auction with the Sps Ocampo as highest bidder. The sheriff executed a certificate of sale and was
registered with the City Register of Deeds. Upon failure to redeem, Sps Ocampo executed an affidavit of
consolidation of title. TCT was issued in their names.

Petitioner Sps Alarilla and their kids filed a complaint against the Sps Ocampo and the Ex-Officio Sheriff with RTC
Manila. They alleged in the complaint that: a) the property sold was constituted as a family home under Family
Code; b) Isidro failed to liquidate the family home after Andrea died which made the REM null and void; c)
plaintiffs offered to redeem but defendants refused to accept it; e) sheriff sold the property in excess of the correct
amount owed to plaintiffs thus sale was void; f) period for redemption not yet expired since they offered to redeem
the correct amount but defendants refused the same

Petitioner-Plaintiffs prayed for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin sheriff from implementing the writ
of possession issued by RTC. They prayed for the following: a) Certificate of Sale be declared void; b) defendants
pay plaintiffs damages and expenses for such suit; c) make injunction permanent; d) Declare family home free
from any encumbrances

Meanwhile, Reynaldo Ocampo filed a petition for write of possession with RTC Manila. There was no opposition.
Ocampo adduced evidence ex-parte and the court issued an order granting said writ. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint but raising essentially the same issues.

Petitioner Rodolfo Alarilla filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of possession. RTC denied the motion.
Petitioners appealed to CA which affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners received a copy of the CA decision on
March 3, 2000. On March 20, 2000, they filed an MR. On August 17, 2000, CA issued a resolution denying the
MR. Petitioners received a copy of said resolution on September 4, 2000 and on September 19 they filed with SC
a motion for extension for 30 days to file a petition for review of the CA decision. (Note: this paragraph is the
relevant one for our CivPro topic)

Petitioners’ contention:

CA’s decision was not in accord with the applicable decision of SC in interpreting art. 158 of Family Code in
relation to art. 153 where family residence of beneficiaries is constituted by law as family home. And by that
reason the REM is void for failure to secure conformity of the beneficiaries. Petitioners cannot be ousted without
filing an ordinary action for recovery of possession to give mortgagors a chance to be heard.

CA:

Redemption period expired without redemption being made so the writ must issue to place buyer in possession of
foreclosed property. The right to possession is absolute; it may be obtained thru a writ applied for ex-parte based
on Act No 3135. Being the successful bidder, defendants had consolidated ownership over the property.
Respondents Ocampo’s contention:

CA had become final and executory when the petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration of the decision only
on March 20, 2000 or seventeen (17) days after being served a copy of the said decision.

Petitioners’ counter argument:

March 18 was the last day to file an MR of CA decision, which fell on a Saturday. Petitioners had until March 20,
the first regular working day to file the MR. However, Respondents did not raise this issue in the CA and raising it
now is a mere afterthought. In any event, failure to seasonably file is a mere procedural lapse and should not
prevail over their right to appeal from assailed CA decision.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio

1) W/N Petitioners’ MR of 1) The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was filed
the CA decision was filed within the reglementary period therefor
out of time - NO
2) W/N petition should be Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, as amended, and as applied in several
granted on the merits – cases, provides that where the last day of the period for doing an act as provided by
NO law falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits,
the time should not run until the next working day. In this case, the petitioners had
until March 18, 2000 within which to file their motion for the reconsideration of the
decision of the CA. Since March 18, 2000 was a Saturday, the petitioners had until
March 20, 2000, the next working day thereafter, to file their motion. The petitioners
filed their motion on the said date; hence, the motion was filed within the
reglementary period therefor

2)

Petition stands to fail on the merits.

the 1-yr period to redeem already lapsed. Title had been consolidated under
respondent’s name. As owner thereof, respondent is entitled to its possession as a
matter of right. The issuance of a writ of possession is merely a ministerial function
of the court. No need to file an action to evict petitioners.

Regardless of whether there was a pending action for nullification of the sale at
public auction, respondent as purchaser at public auction is entitled to a writ of
possession without prejudice to the outcome of the action filed by petitioners with
RTC. Moreover, the said writ cannot be thwarted by petitioners raising issues
already raised by them in Civil Case before RTC. Petitioners did not even oppose
the petition for said writ.

RULING

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. Costs against the petitioners.