Case Digest (G.R. No. 192377)
Facts:
The case before us involves Cesar V. Madriaga, Jr. as the petitioner and China Banking Corporation (China Bank) as the respondent. The conflict originated from a series of transactions concerning two residential properties located in Ibayo, Marilao, Bulacan, originally registered under the names of Spouses Rolando and Norma Trajano. In 1991, the Spouses Trajano agreed to sell the properties to Cesar Madriaga, Sr. (the father of the petitioner) for a price of P1,300,000.00, payable in installments. Upon full payment, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on September 2, 1992. However, the Spouses Trajano did not deliver the titles to the properties, leading Madriaga, Sr. to file a suit for specific performance in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 19 of Malolos, registered as Civil Case No. 521-M-93. A compromise was later reached, resulting in the Spouses Trajano's obligation to take out a loan with Asia Trust Bank, secured by a mortgage over the same properties, to settl
Case Digest (G.R. No. 192377)
Facts:
- Property Ownership and Initial Transaction
- The Spouses Rolando and Norma Trajano were the original registered owners of two residential properties in Ibayo, Marilao, Bulacan, covered by TCT Nos. 114853(M) and 114854(M).
- In 1991, the Spouses Trajano agreed to sell the properties to Cesar Madriaga, Sr. for ₱1,300,000.00 on an installment basis.
- Upon full payment, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in Madriaga, Sr.’s favor on September 2, 1992, although the lot titles were not delivered.
- Litigation Arising from Non-Delivery of Titles
- Madriaga, Sr. filed an action for specific performance in RTC Branch 19 of Malolos City (Civil Case No. 521-M-93) due to the failure of the Spouses Trajano to deliver the titles.
- The parties later entered into a compromise agreement approved by the court on June 13, 1994, which included:
- The Spouses Trajano undertaking to secure a loan with Asia Trust Bank, using the properties as collateral to settle ₱1,225,000.00 owed to Madriaga, Sr.
- The retention of the titles by a third party (Mariano and Florentino Blanco) as security for the loan.
- The cancellation of the notice of lis pendens previously caused by Madriaga, Sr.
- Execution Sale and Change of Ownership
- Following the Spouses Trajano’s failure to comply with the terms of the compromise, Madriaga, Sr. moved for execution.
- The RTC issued a writ of execution on September 6, 1994, leading to the levy of several properties, including the ones in dispute.
- At the auction on February 22, 1995, Madriaga, Sr. was declared the winning bidder; a certificate of sale was issued on March 22, 1995.
- After the one-year redemption period expired, a final deed of sale was issued and the original TCT Nos. 114853(M) and 114854(M) were cancelled and replaced by TCT Nos. T-284713(M) and T-284714 in Madriaga, Sr.’s name.
- On January 27, 1997, Madriaga, Sr. secured an ex parte writ of possession.
- Foreclosure by China Bank and Subsequent Proceedings
- On January 2, 1995, the Spouses Trajano obtained a loan from China Banking Corporation, using the same properties (TCT Nos. 114853(M) and 114854(M)) as collateral.
- After defaulting on the loan, China Bank foreclosed the mortgage on October 20, 1997, and was declared the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale on November 24, 1997.
- Following consolidation of the titles, China Bank was issued new titles (TCT Nos. T-346239(M) and T-346240(M)), effectively replacing the original titles a second time.
- Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Possession by China Bank
- On April 2, 2002, China Bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with RTC Branch 17 of Malolos (Civil Case No. P-167-2002), which impleaded the Spouses Trajano and all persons claiming rights under their name.
- The writ was granted on July 12, 2002, and a copy was served on Madriaga, Sr. on August 2, 2002.
- Opposition, Motions, and Subsequent Developments
- On November 1, 2002, Madriaga, Sr. filed an opposition to the writ, asserting his true ownership acquired through the earlier execution sale and the subsistence of his titles.
- The RTC dismissed both his opposition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.
- On April 13, 2005, Madriaga, Sr. filed a Motion to Quash/Abate the Writ of Possession, which was denied in an RTC Order on February 6, 2006.
- He further moved for reconsideration on March 6, 2006, claiming deprivation of due process for not being served notice of the ex parte petition.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Review and Final Procedural Posture
- The CA, in its Decision on January 27, 2010, ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Madriaga, Sr.’s motion because the writ of possession had already been satisfied (physical removal occurred on April 15, 2005), rendering the motion moot and academic.
- The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on May 26, 2010, prompting the present petition for review.
Issues:
- Whether the ex parte writ of possession issued by the RTC violated the due process rights of the petitioner by:
- Failing to give proper notice to Madriaga, Sr. before its issuance.
- Precluding the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings.
- Whether the issuance of the ex parte writ of possession could be attacked directly or collaterally as being null and void ab initio due to alleged procedural irregularities, despite its subsequent satisfaction.
- Whether the transfer of property titles through extrajudicial foreclosure (resulting in the issuance of new titles in favor of China Bank) and the subsequent issuance of the writ of possession by the RTC were proper and in accordance with the law.
- Whether the case had become moot and academic since the writ of possession had been fully executed and the petitioner had been removed from the premises.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)