G.R. No. 161882 - Bukidnon Doctors' Hospital Inc. vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.

In 1995, Bukidnon Doctors’ Hospital, Inc. (petitioner) obtained a ₱25 million loan from Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (respondent) to construct a hospital.
To secure the loan, the petitioner mortgaged six parcels of land in Valencia, Bukidnon, covered by TCT Nos. T-52197 to T-52202, registered in the names of Dr. Rene Sison and Rory P. Roque.

Upon default, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed; the respondent, as sole bidder, purchased the properties at public auction.
The petitioner failed to redeem within the statutory period; on October 1, 2001, the respondent consolidated ownership and was issued new certificates of title.

On July 7, 2001, the petitioner requested to continue occupancy and offered ₱100,000/month rent for at least three years to avoid hospital disruption.
On December 17, 2001, the respondent proposed ₱200,000/month, one-month advance, three-month deposit, retroactive effectivity June 2001, and six-month review.
By letter dated May 30, 2002, the respondent agreed to ₱150,000/month with effectivity November 2001.

On July 16, 2003, the respondent demanded vacation within 15 days; the petitioner refused, citing the lease.
On August 21, 2003, the respondent filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession in RTC Malaybalay City (Misc. Case No. 735-03); the court granted the writ on November 17, 2003, and denied reconsideration on January 23, 2004.
The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on January 29, 2004 (later withdrawn), filed an action for specific performance and damages (Civil Case No. 3312-03), a petition for rehabilitation (Spec. Pro. Case No. 2004-019), and on March 4, 2004, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising only a legal issue.

Whether the petitioner engaged in forum‐shopping by pursuing multiple proceedings.
Whether the petitioner waived its right to file a Rule 45 petition by initially filing an appeal under Rule 41.
Whether direct recourse to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 was proper, considering the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Whether a writ of possession under Act 3135, as amended, remains the correct remedy to evict a former mortgagor who has become a lessee after foreclosure and consolidation of title.