G.R. No. 132774 - Aguinaldo vs. Commission on Elections

DNG Realty and Development Corporation obtained a loan of P20 million from Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (EPCIB).
The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over a 63,380-square-meter parcel of land located in Cabanatuan City.
The economic downturn during the Asian Economic Crisis caused liquidity problems for DNG, leading to its inability to pay on time.

Owing to DNG’s default, EPCIB initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure.
EPCIB filed a petition for sale on June 30, 2003, before the Office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff.
On September 4, 2003, the property was sold at public auction, with EPCIB emerging as the highest bidder.
On the same day, the Sheriff executed a Certificate of Sale in favor of EPCIB.

Respondent DNG filed a petition for rehabilitation under Rule 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation on October 21, 2003 before the RTC, Branch 28, Special Proceeding No. 125.
Following the petition, RTC Branch 28 issued a Stay Order on October 27, 2003, which was a preventive measure to suspend enforcement of claims, including foreclosure proceedings.
The petition was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation on November 19 and 26, 2003.

Despite the issuance of the Stay Order, EPCIB recorded the Certificate of Sale on December 3, 2003, with the Registry of Deeds of Cabanatuan City.
EPCIB executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and arranged for the annotation on DNG’s title (TCT No. 57143).
Consequently, DNG’s title was cancelled, and a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-109482) was issued in the name of EPCIB on December 10, 2003.

To effectuate its rights over the property, EPCIB filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession on March 17, 2004 in Cadastral Case No. 2414-AF before RTC Branch 23.
RTC Branch 23 ordered the issuance of the writ of possession on September 6, 2004, which was executed on October 4, 2004, followed by the issuance of a Notice to Vacate on October 6, 2004.
In response, DNG filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 15, 2004. This petition sought to annul:

The Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership.
The cancellation of its title and the subsequent issuance of a new title in favor of EPCIB.
The RTC Order directing the issuance of the writ of possession and the writ itself.
The Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate.

Additionally, DNG sought to enjoin EPCIB and its agents from enforcing these actions, arguing that they were premature and untimely given the effect of the Stay Order.

After the parties filed their respective pleadings, the CA issued its decision which:

Reversed and set aside the RTC Order ordering the issuance of the writ of possession.
Reversed the issuance of the writ of possession and the subsequent Notice to Vacate.
Annulled the new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-109482) in favor of EPCIB and reinstated DNG’s original title (TCT No. 57143).

The CA based its decision on the premise that all actions taken by EPCIB after the issuance of the Stay Order were premature and untimely, asserting that the Stay Order should have suspended all further proceedings related to the foreclosed property.

Whether respondent DNG’s filing of a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy against the ministerial acts (i.e., consolidation of title, issuance of the writ of possession, cancellation of title, and issuance of a new title) executed by EPCIB.
Whether DNG had any plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy under the law, particularly under Section 8 of Act 3135, instead of resorting to Rule 65.

Whether the CA was correct in holding that, following the issuance of the Stay Order in the rehabilitation proceedings, all subsequent actions regarding the foreclosed property should have been held in abeyance.
Whether EPCIB’s subsequent actions (recording of the Certificate of Sale, consolidation of ownership, issuance of a new title, and petition for issuance of a writ of possession) were valid despite being performed after the Stay Order had been issued.