G.R. No. 233127 - Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. vs. Labrador

Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. (petitioner) contested against Novelita Labrador and Philippians Academy of Parañaque City (respondents).
The dispute involved two parcels of land with improvements in Parañaque City covered by TCT Nos. 173576 and 173577 (subject properties).

Novelita Labrador, former owner of the subject properties, obtained a loan of P3,440,000.00 from Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation (Chinatrust).
On September 26, 2007, to secure payment of obligations, Labrador executed a real estate mortgage (REM) in favor of Chinatrust, which was duly registered and annotated on the TCTs.
Upon default, Chinatrust applied for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM before the RTC of Parañaque City, docketed as LRC Case No. 12-0044.
After compliance with notice and publication, the public auction was held on May 26, 2009, where petitioner became the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale dated June 18, 2009 was issued in its favor and registered on July 3, 2009.

Labrador failed to redeem the properties within one year from registration of the sale. Petitioner consolidated ownership by executing an Affidavit of Consolidation on July 5, 2010.
The Register of Deeds canceled Labrador’s TCTs and issued new TCT Nos. 010-2010002226 and 010-2010002227 in favor of petitioner.
Petitioner sent a demand letter on February 7, 2012, to Labrador and Benjamin Labrador to surrender possession, which was ignored.

On March 21, 2012, petitioner filed an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession against Labrador and other occupants, also praying for a break open order for effective implementation.
RTC found the petition sufficient on March 27, 2012.

Philippians Academy, alleging a right of interest as a transferee through a Declaration of Trust Agreement with Labrador dated September 28, 2007, filed a comment opposing the petition.
On September 26, 2012, Philippians Academy filed a Counter-Petition alleging it is the true owner and Labrador was mere trustee.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Counter-Petition.

On December 10, 2012, the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Ex Parte Petition for writ of possession, reasoning that an adversarial dispute exists which cannot be resolved by ex parte issuance.
The RTC recognized the Declaration of Trust and held that possession disputes requiring determination of adverse claims must be heard in proper action.

Petitioner appealed, but the CA dismissed the appeal outright as an improper remedy, declaring the RTC Order interlocutory and not appealable under Rule 41, Section 1(c).
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising five main issues including the finality of the RTC order, alleged ministerial duty of court to issue writ of possession after consolidation of ownership, and failure of Philippians Academy’s opposition to meet legal requirements.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for being the wrong legal remedy, asserting the RTC’s dismissal was a final judgment, not interlocutory.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply the doctrine that issuance of writ of possession becomes a matter of right once the title is consolidated in the purchaser’s name.
Whether the CA erred in affirming dismissal despite Philippians Academy’s failure to comply with procedural requirements in opposing the writ of possession.
Whether Philippians Academy sufficiently proved it is a third party claiming rights adverse to the mortgagor/debtor under Sec. 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Whether petitioner, as a purchaser in good faith and for value through public auction, is entitled to issuance of the writ of possession despite objections.