G.R. No. 104726 - Yam vs. Court of Appeals

On September 17, 2009, the spouses De Jesus filed a Complaint for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note and Foreclosure Sale and Damages with an Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan.
They prayed for the declaration of nullity of the mortgages and promissory notes, annulment of the foreclosure proceedings, and issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction to prevent Land Bank from consolidating ownership of the properties.
They alleged consolidation was impending because a Certificate of Sale had been issued in Land Bank’s favor and registered with the Registry of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan.

RTC issued a Notice setting the TRO application hearing for September 23, 2009; the spouses presented their first witness that date.
After the witness, the spouses withdrew their TRO motion upon a courtroom commitment by Land Bank’s counsel, Atty. Napoleon Latosa, that the bank would not consolidate for the duration of the hearing on the preliminary injunction.
The RTC ordered continuation of the hearing on the preliminary injunction and the main case and set the next hearing initially for October 28, 2009.
The spouses moved to reset the hearing to December 9, 2009; the RTC granted the reset and later ordered the main case set for pre-trial to be held December 9, 2009.
The schedule was thereafter affected by subsequent events, including Atty. Latosa’s demise; the RTC conducted a preliminary conference on July 19, 2011 and set presentation of the spouses’ evidence for June 26, 2012 and August 7, 2012.

On May 22, 2012, Land Bank, through new counsel, filed an Entry of Appearance and Manifestation stating it would proceed to consolidate ownership because the one-year redemption period lapsed without redemption and because the period tied to issuance of a preliminary injunction lapsed without RTC issuing one.
On June 5, 2012, the spouses filed a Counter-Manifestation and Motion arguing the bank’s commitment not to consolidate extended for the duration of the main case and not only for the period for issuance of a writ; they asserted they withdrew the TRO because of that commitment and moved that the court set the case for a hearing on the preliminary injunction and require Land Bank to maintain status quo.

RTC, in an August 22, 2012 Order, denied the spouses’ motion for a status quo order, finding consolidation was a matter of right upon lapse of the one-year redemption period and that a status quo order would be tantamount to an injunction which cannot be granted without a hearing.
The spouses filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in its November 29, 2012 Order.
The spouses filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC orders.

CA, in its April 29, 2015 Decision, held the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the status quo order without having conducted a hearing on the...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s August 22, 2012 and November 29, 2012 Orders on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Whether the spouses De Jesus abandoned their application for preliminary injunction by moving for pre-trial and delaying active pursuit of the injunction for two years.
Whether Land Bank’s counsel’s courtroom commitment not to consolidate extended for the entire duration of the main case or only for the duration of the hearing on the preliminary injunction.
Whether issuance of a st...(Subscriber-Only)