Facts:

In 1995, spouses Homobono and Luzdeldia Tarampi (respondents) secured loans amounting to P19,000,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (petitioner). These loans were guaranteed by four sets of real estate mortgages over a 796-square meter parcel of land situated in Tandang Sora, Quezon City, identified by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 122627 from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Following their failure to meet their repayment obligations, the petitioner initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, which resulted in the mortgaged property being auctioned off on February 8, 1999, where the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was subsequently issued and duly registered, leading to the cancellation of TCT No. 122627 and the issuance of TCT No. N-216396 in favor of the petitioner on July 27, 2000.

On October 9, 2000, the petitioner filed an Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Possession over the foreclosed property, which was assigned to

...

Facts:

Loan and Mortgage Arrangement

• In 1995, spouses Homobono and Luzdeldia Tarampi obtained loans from the Bank of Philippine Islands totalling P19,000,000.
• The loans were secured by four sets of real estate mortgages over a parcel of land located at Tandang Sora, Quezon City, covering 796 square meters and evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 122627 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

Default and Extrajudicial Foreclosure

• The respondents defaulted on their obligations under the loan agreement.
• The petitioner initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings as provided by law.
• An auction sale was conducted on February 8, 1999, where the mortgaged property was sold to the petitioner as the highest bidder.
• Following the sale, a Certificate of Sale was issued to the petitioner and duly registered and annotated on TCT No. 122627.

Consolidation of Ownership and Issuance of New Title

• With the expiration of the redemption period without the respondents redeeming the mortgages, the petitioner executed an Affidavit of Consolidation through its Vice-President, Jocelyn C. Sta. Ana.
• As a result, TCT No. 122627 was cancelled and a new TCT, No. N-216396, was issued in the name of the petitioner on July 27, 2000, thereby consolidating its title to the property.

Petition for Writ of Possession and Initial Court Orders

• On October 9, 2000, the petitioner filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession covering the property and all improvements thereon.
• The petition was docketed as LRC Case No. Q-13412(00) and raffled to Branch 105 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
• By an Order dated October 1, 2001, Branch 105 granted the petitioner’s ex parte petition for the issuance of the writ of possession.

Respondents’ Opposition and Subsequent Suspensive Orders

• The respondents filed an “urgent motion for leave to admit attached opposition and dismissal of petition for issuance of writ of possession” on November 23, 2001.
• Their motion was premised on the pendency of an annulment action (Civil Case No. Q-00-41440) for the real estate mortgages which was assigned to Branch 220 of the RTC of Quezon City.
• On December 18, 2002, Branch 105 suspended the implementation of the writ of possession pending the determination of the validity of the mortgages by Branch 220.

Reconsideration and Consolidation of Proceedings

• The petitioner later filed a Motion for Reconsideration prompting Branch 105 to recall its December 18, 2002, order on August 6, 2003.
• Branch 105 set for hearing the respondents’ opposition, treating it as a petition under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended.
• The respondents’ opposition implied that the extrajudicial foreclosure sale did not meet the statutory provisions because the real estate mortgages did not clearly articulate the respondents’ legal obligations.

Motion for Immediate Implementation of the Writ of Possession

• The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Immediate Implementation of the writ of possession.
• Branch 105 granted this motion by Order dated February 7, 2006, concurrently ordering that the respondents’ opposition be consolidated with the annulment case pending in Branch 220.

Notice of Appeal and Further Litigatory Developments

• On February 24, 2006, the respondents filed a Notice of Appeal against the February 7, 2006, Order of Branch 105.
• The petitioner opposed the appeal, arguing that the motion and the resultant order were ex parte and interlocutory in nature, rendering them non-appealable.
• Respondents maintained their right to appeal by invoking Section 14 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act).
• Branch 220, which was assigned the consolidated annulment case, gave due course to the respondents’ appeal, as evidenced by its June 30, 2006, Order.
• The petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of the June 30, 2006, Order was denied by Branch 220 on September 27, 2006, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.
• Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals dismissed the respondents’ appeal of the issuance of the writ of possession (Decision dated May 27, 2008, in CA-G.R. CV. No. 87902), holding that the petitioner, as the registered owner, was entitled to immediate possession notwithstanding questions regarding the mortgages.

Issue:

Appealability of the Writ of Possession Order

• Whether Branch 220 erred in giving due course to the respondents’ Notice of Appeal from Branch 105’s order granting the petitioner’s motion for immediate implementation of the writ of possession.
• The petitioner contends that, as the proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession are ex parte, the order is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

Timing of Implementation of the Writ of Possession

• Whether it is proper for the writ of possession to be implemented during the pendency of the annulment case concerning the real estate mortgages.
• The respondents argue that since the validity and proper conduct of the extrajudicial foreclosure are in question, a writ of possession should not be executed until the annulment case is resolved.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)