Case Digest (G.R. No. 233127)
Facts:
Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. v. Novelita Labrador and Philippians Academy of Paranaque City, G.R. No. 233127, July 10, 2023, First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. (petitioner) bought at public auction two parcels of land in Parañaque previously owned by respondent Novelita Labrador (Labrador), after extrajudicial foreclosure by Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation pursuant to Act No. 3135. A Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of petitioner (June 18, 2009), the sale was registered, Labrador failed to redeem within one year, and new TCTs were issued to petitioner (TCT Nos. 010-2010002226 and 010-2010002227). Petitioner thereafter demanded possession and, on March 21, 2012, filed an Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 196, Paranaque City.Co-respondent Philippians Academy of Paranaque City (Philippians Academy) intervened, filing a Comment and later a Counter-Petition asserting a Declaration of Trust (notarized Sept. 28, 2007) by which Labrador allegedly held the subject properties in trust for the Academy. The RTC scheduled reception of evidence; petitioner submitted a judicial affidavit, and Philippians Academy filed pleadings opposing issuance of the writ. On December 10, 2012 the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, holding that the existence of the trust transformed the matter into an adversarial dispute requiring a plenary action.
Petitioner appealed the RTC Order to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 41. In a February 15, 2017 Decision (denied in an August 2, 2017 Resolution on reconsideration), the CA dismissed the appeal outright as the wrong remedy because the RTC Order was interlocutory and not appealable under Rule 41, Sec. 1(c); the CA pointed to Rule 50, Sec. 2(2) that an appeal erroneously taken shall be dismissed. Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari un...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 proper, or was the RTC Order interlocutory and therefore not appealable?
- When ownership has been consolidated in the purchaser after extrajudicial foreclosure, is issuance of an ex parte writ of possession a ministerial duty of the court?
- Did Philippians Academy sufficiently prove that it was a third party possessing the property adversely to the mortgagor so as to defeat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)