Title
Green Asia Construction and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 163735
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2006
GACDC defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage; PCILFI foreclosed, obtained a writ of possession. GACDC's motions to set aside the sale were denied; SC upheld CA, ruling proper remedy was a petition under Act 3135, not appeal.
foreclosure
mortgage
petition
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 163735)

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • Petitioner Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation (GACDC), represented by its president Renato Legaspi, and the spouses Renato and Delia Legaspi, are the petitioners.
    • Private Respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCILFI) is the private respondent, while the Court of Appeals is the other respondent in the case.
  • Loan Transaction and Mortgage
    • On June 8, 1995, GACDC obtained a loan amounting to ₱2,600,000 from PCILFI.
    • As security for the loan, GACDC executed a real estate mortgage, covering three parcels of land in Barrio Balibago, Angeles City (TCT Nos. 100362, 100363, and 100364).
    • The mortgage was valued at ₱450,000 and was signed by the petitioners.
  • Foreclosure and Issuance of Certificate of Sale
    • GACDC defaulted on the loan, prompting PCILFI to foreclose the mortgage extrajudicially.
    • PCILFI emerged as the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale.
    • A certificate of sale, dated February 3, 1998, was issued to PCILFI and registered with the Registry of Deeds of Angeles City.
  • Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession
    • On April 12, 2000, PCILFI filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 57 (LRC Case No. A-124-1088).
    • The RTC granted the writ, directing the Sheriff to eject GACDC and occupy the premises noted under the respective TCT numbers.
  • Motions to Set Aside Sale and Cancel the Writ of Possession
    • On May 8, 2002, and subsequently on May 30, 2002, GACDC filed an urgent omnibus motion and a supplement to the motion, praying (a) for the cancellation of the writ of possession and (b) for setting aside the certificate of sale.
    • The RTC issued an order on September 2, 2002, denying the motion for lack of merit.
    • A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on October 14, 2002.
  • Appeal to the Court of Appeals
    • GACDC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the RTC orders.
    • The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated March 18, 2004, and accompanying Resolution dated May 26, 2004, affirmed the RTC’s denial of the motion.
    • GACDC raised two primary issues concerning the form and substance of the petition for the writ of possession and questioned the remedy of appeal provided under Section 8 of Act No. 3135.

Issues:

  • Form and Substance of the Petition for Writ of Possession
    • Whether the petition for the issuance of the writ of possession was proper in form and substance, particularly given that the verification and certification on non-forum shopping was executed by Florescita R. Gonzales, who was alleged not to be duly authorized by PCILFI.
    • Whether the absence of a Secretary’s Certificate in the verification and certification on non-forum shopping rendered the petition defective in form.
  • Appropriateness of Appeal as a Remedy
    • Whether the proper remedy for contesting the issuance of the writ of possession, under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, is an appeal.
    • Whether the petitioners’ attempt to challenge the writ of possession through an urgent omnibus motion falls within the exclusive remedies outlined by the statute.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms