G.R. No. 206599 - 680 Home Appliances, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The case originated from extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings initiated by Deutsche Bank AG London, creditor of 680 Home Appliances, Inc., after the latter defaulted on a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over its commercial lot and building.
In the foreclosure sale, First Sovereign Asset Management, Inc. (FSAMI) emerged as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued on March 13, 2009, registered with the Registry of Deeds of Makati City on March 16, 2009, and annotated on 680 Home’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
In June 2009, following the failure of 680 Home to redeem the property, FSAMI consolidated its ownership and was issued a new certificate of title (TCT No. 227316).

On March 20, 2009, 680 Home initiated an action to annul the mortgage and foreclosure before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 137.
On October 26, 2010, FSAMI filed a petition in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. M-5444 for the ex parte issuance of a writ of possession with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 141.
680 Home moved to intervene by filing its opposition to FSAMI’s application; however, the RTC denied its motion in orders dated March 3, 2011, and May 6, 2011.
On July 8, 2011, the RTC granted FSAMI’s application for the writ of possession which, along with the subsequent notice to vacate, was issued on August 31, 2011.

Aldanco Merlmar, Inc., occupying the property as the lessee of 680 Home, filed a motion to intervene in LRC Case No. M-5444, which was granted by the RTC on September 15, 2011.
680 Home contested the issuance of the writ of possession by petitioning to cancel it, invoking Section 8 of Act No. 3135 on grounds including the nullity of the foreclosure and adverse possession by Aldanco.
The RTC, in its orders dated December 20, 2011, and reaffirmed on March 23, 2012, denied the petition to cancel the writ.

680 Home assailed the RTC orders through a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which ultimately affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
The CA held that under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, the petitioner could only file for cancellation of the writ of possession within 30 days after the purchaser (FSAMI) had obtained actual possession—which had not occurred due to Aldanco's continued occupation.
The CA’s decision relied on precedent (Ong v. CA) which required the purchaser to be in possession prior to invoking the cancellation remedy.

680 Home later filed a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the CA decision.
The petitioner argued that the issuance of the writ of possession was not ministerial due to the adverse possession of the property by Aldanco, contending that FSAMI was effectively prevented from securing possession.
Both FSAMI and Aldanco challenged the petition on procedural grounds, suggesting that 680 Home should have sought a remedy under Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) or via a motion for reconsideration instead of resorting to a certiorari petition under Rule 65.

Whether 680 Home Appliances, Inc. availed of the proper remedy by resorting to a certiorari petition under Rule 65 instead of pursuing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal under Rule 45.
Whether the delay (58 days post-receipt of the CA decision) negated the claim of urgency and rendered the certiorari petition as a substitute for the lost appeal.

Whether the cancellation remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 is available when the purchaser (FSAMI) has not acquired actual possession due to the continued occupation by Aldanco.
Whether the adverse possession claim by a third party (Aldanco, as lessee) exempts 680 Home from the requirement of FSAMI’s possession before a petition to cancel the writ may be filed.

Whether allowing 680 Home to pursue the cancellation remedy under Section 8 infringes on rules against forum shopping given its concurrent action for annulment of the foreclosure.