Case Digest (G.R. No. 169190) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In November 1994, petitioners Claro G. Castro and Juanita Castro, together with Cua Lai Chu, obtained a loan amounting to P3,200,000 from the Philippine Bank of Communication (private respondent). To secure this loan, the petitioners executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the property of Claro and Juanita Castro, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 22990. Subsequently, in August 1997, the loan was increased by P1,800,000 through an amendment to the mortgage deed, bringing the total obligation to P5,000,000. Upon the petitioners’ failure to fully pay the loan upon demand, the private respondent initiated the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Petitioners received notice of the foreclosure sale and filed a petition to annul the sale with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The TRO initially postponed the sale, but was later lifted, and the foreclosure sale proceeded on May 29, 2002,
Case Digest (G.R. No. 169190) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Loan and Mortgage Agreement
- In November 1994, petitioners obtained a loan of ₱3,200,000 from Philippine Bank of Communication (private respondent).
- Petitioners executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 22990 to secure the loan.
- In August 1997, an Amendment to the mortgage increased the loan amount by ₱1,800,000, bringing the total to ₱5,000,000.
- Failure to Pay and Foreclosure
- Petitioners defaulted on the loan payment after demand was made by private respondent.
- Private respondent applied for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage.
- Notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale was sent to petitioners.
- Petitioners’ Actions to Halt Foreclosure
- Petitioners filed a petition to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure sale with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Q-02-46184.
- The sale was initially halted by the granted TRO but was later lifted, with the sale reset on May 29, 2002.
- Foreclosure Sale and Certificate of Sale
- At the foreclosure sale, private respondent was the highest bidder.
- A certificate of sale was executed on June 4, 2002, in favor of private respondent.
- The certificate of sale was annotated on TCT No. 22990 on June 7, 2002.
- Issuance of New Title and Writ of Possession
- After the lapse of the one-year redemption period, private respondent filed an affidavit of consolidation to consolidate ownership and title.
- On July 8, 2003, the Register of Deeds canceled TCT No. 22990 and issued TCT No. 251835 in the name of private respondent.
- Private respondent applied for a writ of possession on August 18, 2004.
- Court Proceedings on Writ of Possession
- Petitioners filed an opposition to the application for the writ of possession.
- The trial court granted private respondent’s motion for declaration of general default and permitted presentation of evidence ex parte.
- Petitioners’ notice of appeal was denied by the trial court.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed; their motion for reconsideration was also denied.
- Orders of the Trial Court
- October 8, 2004 Order: Granted private respondent’s motion for declaration of general default and allowed ex parte evidence presentation.
- January 6, 2005 Order: Denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- February 24, 2005 Order: Denied petitioners’ notice of appeal.
- Court of Appeals Resolution
- Dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari on procedural ground—failure to indicate updated PTR number per Bar Matter No. 1132.
- Substantively ruled that issuance of writ of possession is an ex parte proceeding and petitioners’ due process rights were not violated.
- Held no violation of rule against forum shopping since writ of possession application is independent from the pending case contesting foreclosure validity.
Issues:
- Whether the writ of possession was properly issued despite:
- The pendency of a case questioning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, and
- The petitioners being declared in default in the proceeding for issuance of writ of possession despite having filed an opposition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)