G.R. No. 212615 - Labao, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

In 2005, spouses Jose P. Jayag and Marilyn P. Jayag obtained a loan of ₱1,700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc. (RBSJ) with an interest rate of 18% per annum and a penalty charge of 5% per month in case of default.
In 2006, they availed themselves of an additional loan of ₱500,000.00 from the paid-up portion of the 2005 loan under the same terms.
Both loans shared a common maturity date of September 24, 2010.
As security, the petitioners executed a Mortgage Agreement on September 14, 2005, over their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 218703 registered in Makati City.
A subsequent loan of ₱1,000,000.00 was granted, secured by the petitioners’ time deposit with RBSJ.

Between October 2007 and July 2010, petitioners made payments to RBSJ.
On July 24, 2012, RBSJ assigned all its rights over the loan account to Banco De Oro, Inc. (BDO).
A dispute arose regarding the computation of the outstanding balance as petitioners’ ledger did not reconcile with RBSJ’s statement.
On February 8, 2013, BDO filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale with the RTC of Makati City, alleging the petitioners’ failure to settle an outstanding balance amounting to ₱4,699,956.67 (including interest, penalties, and other charges).

A public auction sale was conducted on April 3, 2013, resulting in BDO being declared the highest bidder and the issuance of a Certificate of Sale on April 25, 2013, with a redemption period set until July 5, 2014.
On March 25, 2013, petitioners filed a complaint before the RTC of Makati City (Branch 145) seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against BDO and the Ex-Officio Sheriff.
The RTC initially denied the petition for a TRO (March 27, 2013) and later also denied the application for a preliminary injunction (April 3, 2013), noting insufficient evidence and non-compliance with applicable interest requirements.
Petitioners amended their complaint to include relief for annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale, as well as violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

In February 2014, BDO sent a Notice to Vacate, asserting its right to take possession during the redemption period.
On June 5, 2014, BDO filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Possession before RTC Makati City (Branch 146), which was subsequently granted on September 2, 2014, with the writ being issued on September 18, 2014.
Petitioners attempted to challenge the writ by filing a petition (invoking Section 8 of Act No. 3135) and a Motion to Cancel and/or Suspend its enforcement, but both remedies were denied by the RTC.

Petitioners contended that they were denied the proper remedy by the trial court and should have been able to annul the foreclosure sale and cancel the writ of possession.
They argued that due to the issuance of the writ of possession (a ministerial act under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135) and the lapse of the redemption period, they were left with no adequate remedy except to resort to a petition for certiorari.
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition on the basis that petitioners availed themselves of the wrong remedy, emphasizing that an appeal was the proper remedy given the finality of the trial court’s order, and that the petition for certiorari could not substitute a lost appeal.

Subsequent decisions referenced the denial of petitioners’ motions and reiterated that a writ of possession, once issued after the lapse of the redemption period, confers absolute right of possession to the purchaser.
The CA reaffirmed that any remedy against the issuance of the writ of possession in such extrajudicial foreclosures must be sought via appeal rather than a petition for certiorari.
Petitioners later sought review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which ultimately denied their petition for lack of reversible error.

Whether the petitioners erred in resorting to a petition for certiorari instead of filing an appeal against the trial court’s decision issuing the writ of possession.

The contention revolves around the availability and appropriateness of the remedy post-issuance of the writ.

Whether the trial court’s issuance of the writ of possession constitutes a ministerial function under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, even in light of a decision annulling the foreclosure sale and certificate of sale.

This issue examines if judicial discretion was misapplied in issuing the writ despite pending proceedings on foreclosure annulment.

Whether there exists an urgent and compelling reason justifying the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Petitioners argued that the threatened loss of their residential property and livelihood warranted such relief.
The matter also involves assessing if the purported nullity of the foreclosure sale should suspend the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession.