G.R. No. 75009 - Angeles vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

The property in question was originally owned by spouses Pablo Cayetano and Filomena Mendoza, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42347.
Pablo died on January 3, 1960, leaving Filomena and their children to manage the estate.
On April 10, 1961, Filomena and her children (private respondents) executed an extrajudicial settlement and sale of Pablo’s estate, resulting in the cancellation of TCT No. 42347 and the issuance of TCT No. 68065 in the names of Filomena and the children of Manuel (one of the children).

On November 10, 1980, Filomena sold one-half of the lot to her son Juanito.
Based on that sale, a new title, TCT No. 140500, was issued in the names of Juanito, Filomena, and the children of Manuel.
Juanito later presented an Agreement of Partition of Common Property, purportedly signed by all heirs, which purportedly adjudicated to him the same one-half portion that had already been sold.
Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued TCT No. 146787 to Juanito and TCT No. 146788 to Filomena and the children of Manuel.

Filomena initiated a suit (Civil Case No. 81-001) against Juanito to annul the sale of Lot 40-A on the grounds of his failure to pay the sale consideration.
Despite the suit, Juanito transferred his one-half interest to Bartolome Guevarra under a deed of sale with right to repurchase on December 22, 1981.
Before the expiration of the redemption period, Juanito redeemed the property from Guevarra, borrowing P25,000 from petitioner Francisco M. Angeles, and secured this repayment with a mortgage executed on January 21, 1982, and registered on January 22, 1982.
On March 6, 1982, Juanito obtained an additional loan of P70,000 from Angeles, with the same mortgage securing the additional indebtedness; this was registered on March 8, 1982.

Other heirs of Pablo challenged the Agreement of Partition of Common Property as a forgery, alleging that some signatories were abroad at the time of its execution.
In a letter dated April 20, 1982, these heirs demanded that Juanito pay the mortgage to Angeles and reconvey the property to them.
Angeles, upon receiving the notice, assured the petitioners (the heirs) that he would not dispose of the property, although he continued with proceedings affecting its title.

Angeles foreclosed the mortgage on May 24, 1982, and the property was sold at public auction on June 28, 1982, with Angeles emerging as the highest bidder.
On July 1, 1983, following the foreclosure, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued TCT No. 155284 in favor of Angeles.
Private respondents later initiated Civil Case No. 84-25611 seeking to annul both the sale made by their mother to Juanito and the spurious partition agreement.
Angeles filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession on July 6, 1984; the trial court granted the petition on August 23, 1984, directing the Sheriff to evict all persons in possession, including not only the mortgagors but “other persons” believed to be in wrongful possession.
Subsequent legal maneuvers, including attempts by private respondents to obtain preliminary injunctions in Civil Case No. 84-25611, were unsuccessful, and on January 16, 1985, the writ of possession was enforced, resulting in the eviction of Heracleo, Concepcion, and Juanito.
A petition for certiorari was later filed to set aside, at least in part, the trial court’s order, challenging the inclusion of the private respondents in the writ of possession.

On April 24, 1986, the respondent court (Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals) amended the writ of possession to limit its effect solely to the spouses Juanito and Antoinette Cayetano and their agents, and to order the restoration of the private respondents’ possession pending resolution of Civil Case No. 84-25611.
Angeles filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on June 25, 1986.
The central issue in the present petition for review focused on whether the writ of possession could properly be enforced against the private respondents, who were not parties to the mortgage transaction and had established adverse claims.

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession against private respondents who were not parties to the mortgage transaction.
Whether the writ properly extended to include both the mortgagors and other persons in possession (i.e., the private respondents).

Whether Angeles can be considered an innocent mortgagee and purchaser for value in good faith despite having actual notice of adverse claims by the other heirs.
The legal implications of relying on a “clean” certificate of title when there were known unregistered claims by other heirs.

Whether appeal is the proper remedy, or if petition for certiorari is justified given the urgent need to relieve private respondents from the injurious effects of eviction.
Determination of the timeliness of the appeal and the adequacy of the alternative remedies available to the parties.