DATE: August 26, 2015

SUBJ: The status of personal properties left behind by previous owner in real property subjected
to foreclosure and after the redemption period
The following is a memo about the propriety of physically taking or occupying the
subject parcel of land.
Based on the History of the Transactions and Negotiations Involving the Subject
Property1, the subject parcels were mortgaged, and due to default of VIPI, the mortgagee, the
same were subsequently foreclosed. BSP, being the highest bidder at the public auction, acquired
the same. Since then the redemption period has passed and consolidation of title has been
rendered in favor of BSP.
Considering the facts above, research was conducted on the procedure required to
physically take or occupy the subject parcel of land after foreclosure, the lapse of the
redemption period, and consolidation of title:
In PDCP Development Bank v. Vestil2, the Supreme Court declared: the rule is that after
the redemption period has expired, the purchaser of the property has the right to a conveyance
and to be placed in possession thereof. In Javelosa v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
clarified that to obtain possession, the vendee or purchaser may either ask for a writ of
possession or bring an independent action, such as a suit for ejectment. 3 In Alarilla v. Ocampo.
the Supreme Court applied the rules previously stated to the facts of that case: the one-year
period for the petitioners to redeem the mortgaged property had already lapsed. Title to the
property had already been consolidated under the name of the respondent. As the owner of the
property, the respondent is entitled to its possession as a matter of right. The issuance of a writ of
possession over the property by the court is merely a ministerial function. In Joven v. Court of
Appeals4, the Supreme Court discussed the proper procedure that must be followed in order to
give effect to a right of possession:
[T]o give effect to his right of possession, the purchaser must invoke the aid of
the courts and ask for a writ of possession. He cannot simply take the law into his
own hands and enter the property without judicial authorization. We have
consistently held that he need not bring a separate and independent suit for this
purpose. Nevertheless, it is essential that he ask for and be granted a writ of
possession in order that he may be legally installed in the property he has
bought.
In the same case, the Supreme Court said that DBPs failure to secure a writ of possession
to authorize its entry into the subject land, among others, meant that it had not acquired any
perfected right of possession. Due to DBPs failure, the Supreme Court said that it had opened
1 Re: TCTs (sic) Nos. T-91328, T-91329, and T-91330, Page 2.
2 A.M. No. RTJ-96-1354, November 21, 1996.
3 G.R. No. 124292, December 10, 1996.
4 G.R. No. 80739, August 20, 1992.
Page 1 of 3

itself to liability for forcibly entry: [t]he act of going on the property and excluding the lawful
possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that
is necessary.5
In Knecht v. Desierto6, petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents. One of the
facts they alleged that was wrongful was the removal of their personal properties from the
premises. The respondents argued that they were clothed with proper judicial armor in the form
of a writ of possession, allowing them to remove the personal properties from the premises,
among others, in order for the real estate to be placed fully in the possession of the government.
The Supreme Court noted that: the issue of ownership over the expropriated land had already
been laid to rest with finality. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the acts by the policemen,
impliedly including the removal of personal properties from the premises, as valid.
In Gonzales v. Calo7 which involved the execution of a writ of possession, the Supreme Court
enumerated the duties of a sheriff in relation to Sections 10(c)8, 10(d)9 and 1410 of Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court:
[F]irst, to give notice of the writ and demand that the judgment obligor and all
persons claiming under him vacate the property within three (3) days; second, to
enforce the writ by removing the judgment obligor and all persons claiming under
the latter; third, to remove the latters personal belongings in the property as well
5 Joven v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80739, August 20, 1992.
6 G.R. No. 121916, June 26, 1998.
7 A.M. No. P-12-3028, April 11, 2012.
8 SEC.10.Execution of judgments for specific act.x x x x (c) Delivery or restitution of real
property.The officer shall demand of the person against whom the judgment for the delivery or
restitution of real property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the
property within three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof to the judgment obligee; otherwise,
the officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace
officers, and employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the
judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or profits awarded by the
judgment shall be satisfied in the same manner as a judgment for money.
9 SEC.10.Execution of judgments for specific act.x x x x (d) Removal of improvements on
property subject of execution.When the property subject of the execution contains improvements
constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or
remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment
obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time
fixed by the court.
10 SEC.14.Return of writ of execution.The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court
issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be
satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and
state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment
may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the
proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or
periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and
copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.

Page 2 of 3

as destroy, demolish or remove the improvements constructed thereon upon

special court order; and fourth, to execute and make a return on the writ within
30 days from receipt of the writ and every thirty (30) days thereafter until it is
satisfied in full or until its effectivity expires
In Lu v. Siapno11, the Supreme Court found the respondent Sheriff guilty of gross abuse of
authority for failure to give the complainant 5 days notice to remove his personal belongings
from the subject property.
From Knecht v. Desierto12, Gonzales v. Calo13, and Lu v. Siapno14, it may be deduced that the
sheriff has the duty to remove personal properties left behind or found in real property that is the
subject of a writ of possession, provided that notice was given to the previous owner and that
removal by the sheriff is done after the lapse of the period given in the notice. As to whether the
sheriff is in charge of making an inventory of personal belongings of the previous owner of the
property, efforts were made to find the Handbook of Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial
Academy, but the same could not be found online.
Please let me know if further or other research may be necessary.

11 A.M. MTJ-99-1199, July 6, 2000 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 97-381-MTJ).

12 G.R. No. 121916, June 26, 1998.
13 A.M. No. P-12-3028, April 11, 2012.
14 A.M. MTJ-99-1199, July 6, 2000 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 97-381-MTJ).
Page 3 of 3