CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 182547
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
and
MENDOZA,
JJ.
ARMI S. ABEL,
Respondent. Promulgated:
January 10, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the trial court’s
grant of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before the possessor
of the property could be heard on her opposition and its subsequent denial of
her motion for reconsideration.
The Facts and the Case
In a foreclosure sale, petitioner
China Banking Corporation (China Bank) acquired title[1]
over respondent Armi S. Abel’s property at La Vista Subdivision,
On October 2, 2003 the RTC rendered a
decision, granting China Bank’s petition and directing the issuance of a writ
of possession over the property in its favor.
Abel appealed from this decision but lost her appeal[2]
in the Court of Appeals (CA). She filed
a petition for review before this Court in G.R. 169229 but this, too,
failed. She filed a motion for
reconsideration and a second similar motion without success. The Court’s judgment became final and
executory and, eventually, the record of her case was remanded to the RTC for
execution.
China Bank filed a motion for
execution with the RTC, setting it for hearing on June 8, 2007. On June 7, 2007 Abel filed a motion to cancel
and reset the hearing on the ground that she needed more time to comment on or
oppose the bank’s motion. On June 8,
2007 the RTC granted her the 10-day period she asked but “from notice.”
On June 19, 2007, noting Abel’s
failure to file her opposition to or comment on the motion for execution, the RTC
issued an Order granting China Bank’s motion.
After being served with the notice to vacate, Abel filed on June 21,
2007 an omnibus urgent motion for reconsideration and to admit her opposition
to the bank’s motion for execution. She
set her urgent motion for hearing on June 29, 2007. On June 22, 2007, however, the day after
receiving her motion, the RTC denied the same for lack of merit.
On June 25, 2007 the sheriff
implemented the writ against Abel and placed China Bank in possession of the subject
property. On even date, Abel filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA in
CA-G.R. SP 99413, assailing the RTC’s June 19 and 22, 2007 Orders. On July 2, 2007, a Saturday, Abel took back possession
of the premises on the strength of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that the
CA issued on June 29, 2007.
On January 3, 2008 the CA rendered a
decision,[3]
setting aside the assailed orders of the RTC.
China Bank moved for its reconsideration but the CA denied this in an
April 9, 2008 Resolution.[4] The CA ruled that the RTC committed grave
abuse of discretion in granting the bank’s motion for execution, noting that
the latter court gave Abel 10 days from notice of its order, not 10 days
from the issuance of such order, within which to file her opposition. Parenthetically, the shorter period was what
she asked for in her motion for postponement.
But there was no proof, said the CA, as to when Abel had notice of the
RTC’s June 8, 2007 Order as to determine when the 10-day period actually began
to run.
China Bank thus filed this petition
for review on certiorari against the
CA decision and resolution denying its motion for reconsideration.
The Issue Presented
The issue in this case is whether or
not the CA erred in setting aside the assailed RTC’s June 19 and 22, 2007 Orders
on the ground of failure to observe due process respecting Abel’s right to be
heard on the bank’s motion for execution.
The Court’s Ruling
The CA erred in attributing grave
abuse of discretion to the RTC. Although
the RTC caused the issuance of the writ of execution before it could establish
that Abel’s 10 days “from notice” within which to file her opposition had
lapsed, she filed with that court on June 21, 2007 an urgent motion for
reconsideration with her opposition to the motion for execution attached. The Court, acting on her motion, denied it on
the following day, June 22, 2007. Any
perceived denial of her right to be heard on the bank’s motion for execution
had been cured by her motion for reconsideration and the RTC’s action on the
same.
True, Abel gave notice to China Bank
that she would submit her motion for reconsideration for the RTC’s
consideration on June 29, 2007 but that notice is for the benefit of the bank,
not for her, that it may be heard on the matter. She cannot complain that the court acted on
her motion more promptly than she expected especially since she actually
offered no legitimate reason for opposing the issuance of a writ of possession
in the bank’s favor.
Orders for the issuance of a writ of
possession are issued as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper
motion and approval of the corresponding bond since no discretion is left to
the court to deny it.[5] The RTC’s issuance of such writ conformably
with the express provisions of law cannot be regarded as done without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Such issuance being ministerial, its execution
by the sheriff is likewise ministerial.[6] In truth, the bank has failed to take
possession of the property after more than seven years on account of Abel’s
legal maneuverings.
ACCORDINGLY, the
Court GRANTS the petition of China
Banking Corporation, REVERSES and SETS
ASIDE the Court of Appeals decision dated January 3, 2008 and resolution
dated April 9, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP 99413, and REINSTATES the orders of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 220) in
LRC Case Q-16014(03) dated June 19 and 22, 2007. With costs against respondent Armi S. Abel.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
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
Chairperson, Second Division
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
[1] Transfer Certificate of Title N-241387 in the name of China Banking Corporation.
[2] CA-G.R. CV 80522.
[3] Rollo, pp. 49-61; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
[4]
[5] Spouses Camacho v. Philippine National Bank, 415 Phil. 581, 586 (2001).
[6] Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc. v. Pizarro, 489 Phil. 127, 138 (2005).