Facts:

The case, "Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. The Court of Appeals, Pacifico P. de Dios and Leonora Dominguez," was brought before the Philippine Supreme Court under G.R. No. 95133, with the decision dated August 21, 1991. The core of the dispute arose from a mortgage and subsequent foreclosure sale involving property originally owned by Pacifico P. de Dios and his wife Leonora Dominguez. In a complaint filed on October 8, 1987, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, the respondents sought the annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale, along with a preliminary injunction. The RTC, under Civil Case No. 25528, ruled on February 28, 1989, that the mortgage executed by Pacifico P. de Dios in favor of Atlas was valid only concerning Pacifico’s half-interest in the property, while it was deemed null and void regarding Leonora’s half. The court ordered Atlas to convey Leonora’s share or pay her its assessed value if conveyance was impracti

...

Facts:

Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig

• Private respondents instituted a complaint for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale with a preliminary injunction.
• The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 25528.
• After trial, on February 28, 1989, the RTC rendered a judgment that:
• Declared the real estate mortgage executed by Pacifico P. de Dios in favor of defendant Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation valid as to the one-half share owned by Pacifico and null and void as to the one-half share owned by Leonora Dominguez.
• Validated the foreclosure sale only with respect to Pacifico’s share while declaring it null and void concerning Leonora’s share.
• Ordered defendant Atlas to either convey the one-half share of the property to Leonora Dominguez after an ideal division or pay an amount equivalent to its assessed value.
• Dismissed the claims for moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and the counterclaim.
• Both petitioner and private respondent Pacifico P. de Dios sought reconsideration of the RTC decision.
• On May 23, 1989, the trial court issued an Order modifying its previous decision.
• The modified Order declared in its entirety the real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale null and void, and ordered Atlas to either convey the property or pay its duly appraised value.
• Claims for damages and counterclaims were again dismissed.

The Filing of the Petition for Review on Certiorari

• Petitioner (Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation) filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
• The petition raised purely questions of law, concentrating on alleged errors committed by the RTC:
• Erroneous construction of the special power of attorney, limiting the term “any party” only to development banks in selected provinces, and the consequent nullity of the mortgage and foreclosure sale due to lack of consent of Leonora Dominguez.
• The RTC’s order directing petitioner's conveyance of the property or payment of its assessed value, considered contrary to law and equity.
• The RTC’s finding that no lawful supervening act existed to render judgment enforcement impossible.
• The petition was originally filed on June 16, 1989, and was docketed as G.R. No. 88534.

Referral to the Court of Appeals and Subsequent Developments

• On June 28, 1989, the Third Division of the Supreme Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 18145.
• On April 18, 1990, the Court of Appeals rendered a judgment dismissing the petition for review on certiorari, holding that:
• The correct mode of appeal from a RTC decision was through an ordinary appeal (notice of appeal), not by petition for review on certiorari, because no final judgment of the Court of Appeals existed.
• Petitioner's allegations, even if involving errors of law, were merely mistakes of judgment that should have been addressed by ordinary appeal.
• On May 10, 1990, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on September 8, 1990.
• Petitioner maintained that:
• The referral or dismissal of the petition solely on procedural grounds was erroneous.
• The petition presented a meritorious appeal that should have been decided on the merits.

Issue:

Procedural Properness of the Appeal

• Whether the petitioner properly adopted the correct mode of appeal by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Section 25 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines.
• Whether the petitioner should have resorted instead to the ordinary appeal process since the RTC had jurisdiction over the case.

Interpretation of the Special Power of Attorney and Consent Requirement

• Whether the RTC erred in interpreting the term “any party” in the special power of attorney to limit its scope only to development banks in Manila, Pampanga, and/or Bataan.
• Whether this interpretation and consequent ruling rendered the mortgage and foreclosure sale null and void on the basis of the alleged lack of consent of Leonora Dominguez.

Validity of the RTC’s Order on Conveyance or Payment

• Whether ordering petitioner to convey the subject land or pay its assessed value (if conveyance is not feasible) was contrary to law and equity.
• Whether such an order was justified given the circumstances and the applicable legal standards.

Existence of a Lawful Supervening Act

• Whether the RTC erred in finding that there was no lawful supervening act rendering the enforcement of its judgment impossible.
• Whether an actual supervening circumstance should have been considered that might affect the execution of the judicial decision.

Proper Jurisdiction for Deciding Merits versus Procedural Issues

• Whether dismissing the petition solely on procedural grounds (lack of appropriate mode of appeal) improperly precluded the resolution of the meritorious issues raised by the petitioner.
• Whether the referral/remand procedure, as applied, was a valid mechanism to allow the appellate court to decide the merits.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)