Case Digest (G.R. No. 207597)
Facts:
Anecito Campos v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 207597, May 30, 2016, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. This petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Campos’ petition for certiorari in CA‑G.R. CEB SP No. 02964, where he questioned the denial of his motion to suspend the implementation of a writ of possession in CAD Case No. 06‑2266 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Branch 46 (Judge George S. Patriarca).In 1980, Campos mortgaged fourteen lots, including Lot No. 7‑G‑4 (the subject lot), to Far East Bank and Trust Co. (which later merged into Bank of the Philippine Islands or BPI) to secure a loan. In the late 1980s he constructed a two‑storey building on the subject lot, which he said was done with the Bank’s knowledge and consent. After business losses, Campos defaulted; the debt allegedly ballooned to about P11,000,000, and the Bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and became purchaser at public auction.
Following consolidation of title in the Bank’s name, the Bank filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession. The RTC granted the motion (Order dated August 7, 2006) and issued a writ of possession on September 8, 2006. Long after the writ had become final and executory, on February 12, 2007 Campos filed a motion to suspend implementation of the writ and to present evidence that he was a builder in good faith claiming reimbursement under Articles 448, 450, and 546 of the Civil Code.
On April 16, 2007 the RTC denied Campos’ motion for lack of merit, ruling that issuance and implementation of the writ post‑redemption was ministerial under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 and that any claim for reimbursement should be pursued in a separate civil action. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 10, 2007. Campos then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CEB‑SP No. 02964) with application for a temporary restraining order.
On July 24, 2012 the Court of Appeals dismissed Campos’ petition for certiorari for lack of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, holding the RTC acted within the ministerial duty prescribed by Section 7 of Act No. 3135 and noting Section 8 provided the appropriate remedy to contest the writ. Campos’ motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on May 23, 2013. He then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Houston HomeDepot, Inc. (as transferee pendente lite of BPI) and BPI filed comments contesting Campos’ claims of good faith and asserting the mortgage contracts expressly included “all the buildings and improvement...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Campos’ petition for certiorari (i.e., did the Court of Appeals incorrectly find no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC)?
- Did the RTC act without jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession ex parte and denying Campos’ motion to suspend its implementation?
- Is Campos entitled to retain possession of the property or to reimbursement for improvements as a builder in good faith under Articles 448, 450 and 546 of the Civil Code and under the doctrine of Polic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)