Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
SPOUSES
EDMUNDO and Petitioners, -versus- WILLY O. DIZON, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 183027 Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR.,* nachura, PERALTA,
and ABAD,
JJ. Promulgated: July 26, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
PERALTA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of
the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 100730, dated March 27, 2008, and its Resolution[3]
dated May 20, 2008, denying petitioners’, the spouses
Edmundo and Lourdes Sarrosa’s, motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition for certiorari filed
by petitioners for failure to state material dates and for lack of merit.
The
facts are as follows:
On P2,000,000.00).
The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage[4] of
petitioners’ property located in San Dionisio,
On
On
Hence, on
On
On
Petitioners failed to redeem the property
within the one-year period provided under Section 28, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court. Hence, respondent consolidated ownership
over the subject property. Thereafter, the Office of the Register of Deeds of Parañaque
City cancelled TCT No. S-92903 (104540)
in the name of petitioners, and a new title, TCT No. 162999,[9]
covering the subject property, was issued in the name of respondent.
On
On
On June 29, 2007, the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 257 issued an Order[12]
in LRC Case No. 05-0047, ruling that the matter of consolidation of LRC Case No. 05-0047 (Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a
Writ of Possession) with Civil Case No. 02-0335 (Breach of Contract, Damages,
Detailed Accounting, with TRO/Injunction) was procedurally improper. The RTC directed the parties to file their
respective memoranda within 30 days, and stated that the case would be
considered submitted for decision after the expiration of the period.
On
WHEREFORE,
let a Writ of Possession issue in favor of petitioner Willy O. Dizon, ordering
the spouses Edmundo G. Sarrosa and Lourdes Z. Sarrosa and all occupants,
tenants and other persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises and
place petitioner in possession of the property and all its improvements covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 162999 of the Register of Deeds of
Parañaque City.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.[14]
The RTC held that respondent is entitled
to a writ of possession based on the rule that after the redemption period has expired, the
purchaser of the foreclosed property has the right to be placed in possession
thereof.[15] Possession of the property becomes an absolute
right of the purchaser as owner; and, upon proper application and proof of
title, the issuance of a writ of possession in his favor becomes a ministerial
duty of the court.[16]
Petitioners filed with the Court of
Appeals a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition,[17]
alleging that the RTC Judge of Parañaque City,
Branch 257 acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
Decision dated August 22, 2007;
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law to prevent
further irreparable damage and injury to petitioners.
The Court of Appeals found that in the
arguments and prayer of the petition, petitioners also sought to annul the RTC
Order dated
Petitioners prayed that
judgment be rendered annulling the RTC Order dated
In a Decision dated
The Court of Appeals
stated that petitioners failed to state when they received the RTC Order dated
The Court of Appeals also
stated that even if it were to take cognizance of the petition, it found that the
RTC Judge of
Moreover, the Court
of Appeals declared that no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the
RTC Judge in granting the writ of possession in favor of respondent. It held,
thus:
x x x Verily,
it is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner
of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year
after the registration of sale. As such,
he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it any time
following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance of a new
transfer certificate of title.
Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser
as confirmed owner and upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance
of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court. If the grant of a writ of possession becomes
ministerial at this point, there is in fact and in law, hardly any discretion
left to court but to issue the same upon the consolidation of title by the
herein private respondent. x x
x[19]
Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution[20] dated
Hence, petitioners
filed this petition for review on certiorari[21] raising the following
issues:
1.
THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS x x x COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN PRECIPITATELY
DENYING PETITIONERS’ [PETITION FOR] CERTIORARI/PROHIBITION
SANS BASIS IN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
2.
THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS x x x COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN PRECIPITATELY
IGNORING EXISTING LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN DENYING [THEIR] PETITION.[22]
Petitioners
contend that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari on the technical ground of failure
to state the date when petitioners received the RTC Order dated
The
contention lacks merit.
In
their petition, petitioners prayed for the annulment of the Order dated
Moreover,
the Court of Appeals stated that even if it took cognizance of the petition, it
found that the RTC of Parañaque City,
Branch 257 did not commit grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Order
dated June 29, 2007 and the Decision dated August 22, 2007.
Petitioners’
allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch
257 implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, the exercise of power in an
arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility, and it
must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to
a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.[25]
The
Court agrees with the finding of the Court of Appeals that the RTC of Parañaque
City, Branch 257 did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Order
dated June 29, 2007, denying the motion to consolidate LRC Case No. 05-0047 (Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession) with Civil
Case No. 02-0335 (Breach of Contract, Damages and Accounting). Consolidation becomes only a matter of right
when the cases sought to be consolidated involve similar questions of fact and
law, provided certain requirements are
met.[26] As stated by the Court of Appeals, no such
similarities exist between the Ex-Parte
Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession and the civil case for Breach of
Contract, Damages and Accounting. Hence,
the RTC had the discretion to deny the consolidation of the two cases.
In
addition, the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the
RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 257 did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing a writ of possession in favor of respondent in its Decision
dated August 22, 2007.
The right of the purchaser to the possession of
the foreclosed property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption
period.[27]
The basis of this right to possession is the purchaser's ownership of the
property.[28] After the consolidation of title in the
buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession
becomes a matter of right and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.[29]
In this case, petitioners failed to redeem the
subject property within one year from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale.[30]
Hence, respondent consolidated ownership over the subject property and TCT No.
162999[31]
was issued in the name of respondent. Thereafter, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ
of Possession over the subject property, and it was ministerial upon the RTC of
Parañaque City, Branch 257 to issue the writ of possession in favor of respondent.
Hence, it is
clear that the RTC of Parañaque
City, Branch 257 did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the writ of
possession, considering that it was the ministerial duty of the RTC to issue the writ of possession in
favor of respondent, who had consolidated
ownership over the subject property
after the redemption period expired.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The Court of
Appeals’ Decision dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Second Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as an additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza per raffle dated
[1] Under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; rollo, pp. 8-19.
[3]
[4] Annex “F,” CA rollo,
pp. 78-80.
[5] Exhibit “H,” records, Vol. II, pp. 9-10.
[6] Exhibit “I-8,” id.
at 20.
[7] CA rollo, pp.
119-133.
[8] Exhibit “M,” records, vol. II, pp. 26-27.
[9] Exhibit
“F,” id. at 5.
[10] Exhibit
“O,” id. at 29.
[11] CA rollo, pp. 216-220.
[12] Rollo, pp. 160-161.
[13]
[14]
[15] United Coconut Planters Bank v.
Reyes, G.R. No. 95095,
[16] F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia
and America, G.R. No. 78714, November 21, 1990, 191 SCRA 516, 523.
[17] Under
Rule 46, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court.
[18] Rollo, p. 19.
[19]
[20]
[21] Under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[22] Rollo, p. 27.
[23] Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No.
172299,
[24] Balayan v. Acorda, G.R. No. 153537,
[25] Sangcopan v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 170216,
[26] Republic
of the
[27] Motos
v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 171386,
[28]
[29] Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Manfred Jacob De Koning, G.R. No. 157867, December 15, 2009.
[30] Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 28.
[31] Supra note 10.