THIRD
DIVISION
|
ALFREDO TAGLE, Petitioner, -
versus - EQUITABLE PCI BANK
(Formerly Philippine Commercial International Bank) and the HONORABLE
HERMINIA V. PASAMBA, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 82,
City of Malolos, Bulacan, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 172299 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 22, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Alfredo
Tagle (petitioner Alfredo) stemmed from the following Resolutions promulgated
by the Court of Appeals: (1) the 6
September 2005 Resolution[1]
dismissing the Petition for Certiorari
filed by petitioner Alfredo, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90461, assailing the
Petitioner Alfredo urges this Court to set aside, on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the
According to petitioner Alfredo, the subject property is
registered in his name and was constituted as a Family Home in accordance with
the provisions of the Family Code. He
and his wife Arsenia Bautista Tagle (Arsenia) never mortgaged the subject
property to respondent Equitable PCI Bank (respondent E-PCI) whether before or
after the subject property was constituted as their Family Home. It was Josefino Tagle (Josefino), who was not
the owner of the subject property, who mortgaged the same with respondent E-PCI. Josefino was religiously paying the installments
on his mortgage obligation and had paid more than half thereof. Josefino, however, passed away. Petitioner Alfredo was then forced to assume
Josefino’s outstanding mortgage obligation.
Even as petitioner Alfredo was already paying Josefino’s mortgage
obligation in installments, respondent E-PCI still foreclosed the mortgage on
the subject property. [8]
On the other hand, respondent E-PCI recounts that the
subject property was formerly registered in the name of petitioner
Alfredo. It was mortgaged, pursuant to a
Special Power of Attorney executed by petitioner Alfredo, to secure the
obligation of the spouses Josefino and Emma Tagle with respondent E-PCI. Respondent E-PCI foreclosed the mortgage on
the subject property upon default in payment by spouses Josefino and Emma, and
upon the expiration of the period of redemption, caused the consolidation and
transfer of the title to the subject property in its name. Consequently, respondent E-PCI filed with the
RTC a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession of the subject
property, which was docketed as LRC Case No. P-71-2004. Petitioner Alfredo, however, filed a Motion
to Stop Writ of Possession on the ground that the subject property is a Family
Home which is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment. [9]
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Motion to Stop Writ of Possession is hereby DENIED.
In denying the motion, the RTC held that:
In
the case at bar, the mortgage transaction happened on
With
Article 155 in application, it is crystal clear that this instant case does not
fall under the exemptions from execution provided in the Family Code, as the
case stemmed from the mortgage transaction entered into between the [herein
respondent E-PCI] and [herein petitioner Alfredo and his spouse Arsenia] dating
back in (sic) 1997. This fact will militate against the so-called exemption by
sheer force of exclusion embodied in said article. Hence, the law’s protective
mantle cannot be availed of by [petitioner Tagle and his spouse Arsenia].[10]
Petitioner Alfredo and his spouse Arsenia filed with the RTC
a Motion for Reconsideration of its foregoing order. However, it was likewise denied by the RTC in
another Order[11]
dated
Thereafter, petitioner Alfredo[12]
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on a Petition for Certiorari [and Prohibition] under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90461, assailing
and seeking the nullification and the setting aside of the denial of his Motion to Stop Writ of Possession.
In a Resolution
dated
The
instant petition is not accompanied by (i) the order denying petitioner’s
motion to exempt from foreclosure of mortgage; and (ii) a relevant and
pertinent document, i.e., motion to
exempt from foreclosure of mortgage (Sec. 1, Rule 65, in relation to Sec. 3,
Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DISMISSED outright.[13]
In due time, petitioner Alfredo moved for the
reconsideration of the afore-quoted Resolution.
On
Petitioner
[Alfredo] seeks reconsideration of Our resolution dated
WHEREFORE,
for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.[14]
Undaunted still, petitioner Alfredo once more filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
appellate court’s
On
For
consideration is petitioner’s [Alfredo’s] motion for reconsideration of Our
Appellant
has not cured the formal defects of the petition noted in Our resolution dated
WHEREFORE,
the subject motion for reconsideration is DENIED.[15]
Hence, this Petition for Certiorari
with Prohibition filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioner Alfredo filed the instant petition designating it
in both the caption and the body as one for “certiorari” under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. He anchors the present petition on the sole
issue of “whether or not the subject property subject of the mortgage being a
family home is exempt from foreclosure of mortgage.”[16]
He argues:
That
from the records of the mortgage, the same was not constituted before or after
the constitution of the family home by the petitioner and as such the Honorable
Court of Appeals has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in the proceedings complained of.[17]
He thus prays for this Court to issue a preliminary
injunction to stop the implementation of the writ of possession of the subject
property, and after due hearing, render a judgment annulling or modifying the
proceedings before the RTC and the Court of Appeals, with costs.[18]
On the other hand, respondent E-PCI counters that the petition at bar must be dismissed on the following grounds:
First, petitioner Alfredo’s
“Petition for Certiorari” with this Court failed to comply with the
technical requirements of the Rules of Court[19]
for petitions for certiorari in that
(a) the present petition was filed out of time considering that the 60-day
period within which to file the same was
reckoned from receipt of the 11 April 2006 Resolution denying petitioner
Alfredo’s second Motion for Reconsideration, instead of the 16 February 2006
Resolution denying his first Motion for Reconsideration;[20]
(b) petitioner Alfredo did not allege in the present petition that the Court of
Appeals “acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”[21]
when it dismissed his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 for failure to attach
thereto certified true copies of the 4 April 2005 RTC Order denying his Motion
to Stop Writ of Possession, as well as the very motion subject of the assailed
order; (c) the present petition lacks the proper verification and is considered
an unsigned pleading which produces no effect whatsoever;[22]
and (d) the present petition requested for the issuance of an injunction
without stating the grounds therefor.[23]
Second,
petitioner Alfredo’s second Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Court of
Appeals is prohibited by law,[24]
as a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution is
clearly disallowed by Sec. 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
And third, granting arguendo that the petition at bar was properly filed by petitioner
Alfredo with this Court, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the
Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 for failure of
petitioner Alfredo to submit the required documents.[25]
Respondent E-PCI then concludes that “the present Petition
for Certiorari was filed not to
question the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals but as a vain hope of
appealing the Order dated April 4, 2005 issued by the Regional Trial Court x x
x.”[26]
In reply to the foregoing counter-arguments, petitioner
Alfredo contends:
1.
That Rule 52 Sec. 2 of
the 1997 Rules of Procedure is not applicable to the present case because what
is applicable is a Second Motion for Reconsideration in the Supreme Court;
2.
That the 60 day period
within which petitioner [Alfredo] may file subject Petition for Certiorari has
been reckoned from April 11, 2006 denying the petitioner’s [Alfredo’s] Second
Motion for Reconsideration and the Rules of Court does not distinguished (sic)
whether the denial is first or second;
x x x x
4.
That the issue of
whether or not the mortgage was executed before or after the constitution of
the Family Home is a necessary question in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65; and
5.
That the verification
based on personal knowledge is proper because the Rules of Court did not
distinguish whether the facts is based on personal knowledge or an (sic)
authentic records;[27]
For its substantive as well as procedural infirmities, the
instant petition must be dismissed.
Given the above-stated
arguments raised by both parties, the threshold question that must be initially
resolved is whether or not the present Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the
proper remedy for petitioner Alfredo to avail of in seeking the reversal of the
three Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals dated 6 September 2005, 16 February 2006 and 11 April 2006.
A petition for certiorari is governed by Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court, which reads:
Section
1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
of [its or his] jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
A
special civil action for Certiorari,
or simply a Petition for Certiorari,
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is intended for the correction of
errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Its principal
office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[28]
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. Such cannot be
used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the
inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.[29]
For a petition for certiorari to prosper, the essential
requisites that have to concur are: (1) the writ is directed against a
tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.[30]
The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court
acted with absolute lack of authority[31]
or want of legal power,
right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either
in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[32] "Excess of
jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends
its power or acts without any statutory authority;[33]
or results when an act,
though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not
authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the
conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect
of it are wanting.[34] While that of "grave
abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put,
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[35]
In the present case, there
is no question that the
SECTION
1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.
– A party desiring to appeal by certiorari
from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals,
the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized
by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise
only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.)
From the words of Rule 45,
it is crystal that decisions (judgments), final orders or resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in any case, i.e.,
regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed
to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a
continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[36]
In the case at bar, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredo’s petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 were
final orders.[37] They were not interlocutory because the
proceedings were terminated; and left nothing more to be done by the appellate
court. There were no
remaining issues to be resolved in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461. Consequently, the
proper remedy available to petitioner Alfredo then was to file before this
Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the assailed Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals, and not a special civil action for certiorari.
From the foregoing
discussion, it is fairly obvious that the third requisite for a petition for certiorari
is wanting, that is, there must be no
appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The availability to petitioner Alfredo
of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari
from the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals effectively barred
his right to resort to a petition for certiorari.
Basic is the rule that a
writ of certiorari will not issue
where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and
adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious
effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[38]
In this case, appeal was not only
available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[39]
Moreover, petitioner Alfredo failed to
show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to
make available to him a petition for certiorari
in lieu of making an appeal.
Petitioner Alfredo failed
to show any valid reason why the issue raised in his petition for certiorari could not have been raised on
ordinary appeal by certiorari. He
simply argued that the appellate court gravely abuse its discretion which
amounted to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition in
CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 and not finding that the subject property covered by the
Writ of Possession was a Family Home, hence, exempt from execution or forced
sale. He did not give a single
explanation as to why the errors committed by the Court of Appeals cannot
possibly be cured by ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
The remedies of appeal in
the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not
alternative or cumulative.[40]
Time and again this Court has reminded
members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a
substitute for a lost appeal[41]
where the latter remedy is available; especially if such loss or lapse was
occasioned by one’s own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[42]
To
be sure, once again, we take this opportunity to distinguish between a Petition
for Review on Certiorari (an appeal
by certiorari) and a Petition for Certiorari (a special civil action/an
original action for Certiorari),
under Rules 45 and 65, respectively, of the Revised Rules of Court. Madrigal
Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[43]
summarizes the distinctions between these two remedies, to wit:
As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed
for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In
Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, we explained the simple reason for the rule
in this light:
‘When a court exercises its
jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the
jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every
error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The
administration of justice would not survive such a rule. Consequently, an error
of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not
correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari.’
The supervisory jurisdiction of a
court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the
purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court
-- on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or
legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are
incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is
normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of
jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact -- a mistake of judgment -- appeal
is the remedy.
As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises
its appellate jurisdiction and power of review. Over a certiorari, the higher
court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with its power of control
and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts. An appeal is thus a
continuation of the original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original
and independent action that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the
rendition of the judgment or order complained of. The parties to an appeal are
the original parties to the action. In contrast, the parties to a petition for
certiorari are the aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the petitioner) against
the lower court or quasi-judicial agency, and the prevailing parties (the
public and the private respondents, respectively).
As to the Subject Matter. Only judgments or final orders
and those that the Rules of Court so declared are appealable. Since the issue
is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be directed against an
interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment; or
where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed
within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant must file a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal within thirty days from the said notice of judgment or
final order. A petition for review should be filed and served within fifteen
days from the notice of denial of the decision, or of the petitioner’s timely
filed motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. In an appeal by
certiorari, the petition should be filed also within fifteen days from the
notice of judgment or final order, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion
for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
On the other hand, a petition for
certiorari should be filed not later than sixty days from the notice of
judgment, order, or resolution. If a motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration was timely filed, the period shall be counted from the denial of
the motion.
As to the Need for a Motion for
Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing
of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to
correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate
remedy expressly available under the law. Such motion is not required before
appealing a judgment or final order.
Evidently, therefore,
petitioner Alfredo erred in filing a Petition for Certiorari instead of
an ordinary appeal by certiorari, already a sufficient justification for
dismissing the instant petition. But
even if his present petition is given due course, we still find it bereft of
merit.
When the Court of Appeals
resolved to dismiss the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461, it did so on the
ground that petitioner Alfredo failed to attach certified true copies of the
following: (1) the
In dismissing the petition
in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461, the appellate court relied on Sec. 1, Rule 65, in
relation to Sec. 3, Rule 46, of the Revised Rules of Court. Sec. 1 of Rule 65[44]
reads:
SECTION
1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of [its or his] jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied
by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphasis supplied.)
And Sec. 3 of Rule 46[45]
provides:
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of
non-compliance with requirements. – The petition shall contain the
full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise
statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65,
the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a
motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of
the denial thereof was received.
It shall
be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service
thereof on the
respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by
the petitioner and shall be accompanied by a
clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment,
order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the
record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent
thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court
or by his duly-authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the
court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized
representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be
accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the
original.
x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with
any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
of the petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
The afore-quoted provisions
are plain and unmistakable. Failure to comply with the requirement that the
petition be accompanied by a duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment, order, resolution or ruling being challenged is sufficient ground for
the dismissal of said petition. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Court
of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 for
non-compliance with Sec. 1, Rule 65, in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 46, of the
Revised Rules of Court.
It is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit
pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[46]
this Court has, before,[47]
treated a petition for certiorari as
a petition for review on certiorari,
particularly (1) if the petition for certiorari
was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition
for review on certiorari;[48]
(2) when errors of judgment are averred; [49]
and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[50]
But these exceptions are not applicable to the present
factual milieu.
Pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court:
SEC.
2. Time for filing; extension. – The
petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the
judgment. x x x.
In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition of petitioner Alfredo in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 by virtue of a Resolution dated
Another elementary rule of procedure is that perfection of
an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional. For this reason, petitioner Alfredo’s failure to file this
petition within 15 days from receipt of the 16 February 2006 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals denying his first Motion for Reconsideration, rendered the
same final and executory, and deprived us of jurisdiction to entertain an
appeal thereof.
The relaxation of procedural rules may
be allowed only when there are exceptional circumstances to justify the same. Try as we might, however, we fail to find the
existence of such exceptional circumstances in this case, and neither did
petitioner Alfredo endeavour to prove the existence of any. In fact, there is total lack of effort on
petitioner Alfredo’s part to at least explain his inability to comply with the
clear requisites of the Revised Rules of Court.
Worth noting is the observation of respondent E-PCI that,
essentially, petitioner Alfredo is using the present Petition for Certiorari, to seek the reversal and
setting aside of the
All told, a perusal of the challenged Resolutions of
the Court of Appeals fail to illustrate any reversible error, much less, a
showing of any iota of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the appellate court, to warrant the exercise by
this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in the case at bar. Considering the allegations, issues and
arguments adduced and our disquisition above, without need of further delving
deeper into the facts and issues raised by petitioner Alfredo in this Petition
for Certiorari with prayer for
preliminary injunction, we hereby dismiss the instant petition for being the
wrong remedy under the Revised Rules of Court, as well as his failure to
sufficiently show that the challenged Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals were rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED
for lack of merit. The three Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T.
REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with
Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Jose C. Mendoza, concurring; rollo, p. 17.
[2] “In Re: Ex-parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession on
the Property Located at BaliuAg, Bulacan Embraced in Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-143715 of the Registry of Deeds for the
[3] Annex “C” of the Petition; id. at 16.
[4] Annex “B” of the Petition; id. at 14.
[5]
A Motion for Reconsideration
of the
[6] Annex “A” of the Petition; rollo, pp. 11-12.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Records, pp. 104-05.
[12] When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, the
petitioner in the case was solely Alfredo Tagle.
[13] Rollo, p. 17.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Id.
[22] Id. at 80.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] People
of the
[29] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 784 (2003); Rivera
v.Hon. Espiritu, 425 Phil. 169,
179-180 (2002); Barangay
Blue Ridge "A" of Quezon City v. Court of Appeals, 377 Phil. 49, 53, (1999); Silverio v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-39861,
[30] Land Bank
of the
[31] Alafriz
v. Nable, 72
Phil. 278, 280 (1941). See also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, supra note 27 at 785.
[32] Land
Bank of the
[33]
[34]
[35] Cuison v.
Court of Appeals, 351
Phil. 1089, 1102 (1998); Lalican v. Hon.
Vergara, 342 Phil. 485, 495 (1997); Pure Foods Corp. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78591, 21 March 1989, 171 SCRA 415,
426; Palma v. Q & S Inc., 123 Phil. 958, 960 (1966).
[36] Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121687, 16 October 1997, 280 SCRA 870,
883.
[37] Heirs of
Placido Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 674, 685 (1996); Marahay v. Melicor,
G.R. No. 44980, 6 February 1990, 181 SCRA 811, 814; Santos v. Pecson, 79
Phil. 261, 263 (1947).
[38] Chua
v. Santos, G.R. No. 132467, 18 October 2004, 440 SCRA 365, 374.
[39] National Irrigation
Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129169,
[40] Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164561, 30 August 2006, 500 SCRA 226, 236.
[41] Land
Bank of the
[42] Land
Bank of the
[43] G.R. No.156067,
[44] Entitled “CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS.”
[45] Entitled “ORIGINAL CASES.”
[46] Oaminal v. Sps.
Castillo, 459 Phil. 542, 556 (2003).
[47]
[48] Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 98 (2000); Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil.
232, 256 (1997).
[49] Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Apppeals, 335 Phil. 1066, 1075 (1997).
[50] Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court
of Appeals, 389
Phil. 644 (2000); Bank of