Case Digest (G.R. No. 187973)
Facts:
LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 187973, January 20, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner LZK Holdings obtained a P40,000,000.00 loan from Planters Development Bank on December 16, 1996, secured by a real estate mortgage over a 589-square-meter lot (TCT No. T-45337). After LZK Holdings defaulted, Planters Bank extrajudicially foreclosed and sold the lot at public auction on September 21, 1998; Planters was the highest bidder and its certificate of sale was registered on March 16, 1999.
On April 5, 1999 LZK Holdings filed in the RTC of Makati City (Branch 150) a complaint to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure, the mortgage contract and related instruments, and sought injunctive relief to enjoin consolidation of title. Meanwhile, Planters filed an ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of possession in the RTC of San Fernando (Dec. 27, 1999). The RTC‑Makati issued a TRO on March 13, 2000 and later a writ of preliminary injunction on April 3, 2000 (issued June 20, 2000 after LZK posted bond), while Planters consolidated title on April 24, 2000.
The RTC‑San Fernando suspended action on Planters’ ex parte motion by Order dated May 11, 2000 because of the RTC‑Makati injunction; its denial of reconsideration followed on September 1, 2000. The RTC‑Makati declared Planters’ consolidated title null and void on June 2, 2000; that ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 26, 2004 and sustained by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 164563 (Resolution dated Sept. 13, 2004). Planters successfully appealed the RTC‑San Fernando’s May 11, 2000 suspension order to the CA, which annulled it; LZK sought review in the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 167998.
In G.R. No. 167998 (Decision dated April 27, 2007, reported at 550 Phil. 825), the Court held that a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period upon filing the proper bond, and that issuance of the writ is a ministerial duty of the trial court. Relying on that ruling, Planters moved in the RTC‑San Fernando to set an ex parte hearing for writ of possession; LZK opposed. The RTC set a hearing for April 14, 2008 but, by Order dated April 8, 2008, declared the hearing moot and granted Planters’ ex parte motion, directing issuance of a writ of possession upon Planters’ posting of a P2,000,000.00 bond.
The CA, in CA‑G.R. S.P. No. 103267, affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated January 27, 2009; LZK’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (Resolution dated May 12, 2009). LZK sought extension to file a petition for review to the Supreme Court and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was LZK Holdings’ petition timely filed and properly reinstated by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata) bars LZK Holdings from contesting Planters Bank’s right to a writ of possession after the Court’s earlier decision in G.R. No. 167998?
- Whether the RTC erred in issuing the writ of possession ex parte without conducting a hearing and whether the P2,000,000.00 bond compli...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)