Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34317)
Facts:
The case is Marcelo Steel Corporation, Hon. Walfrido de los Angeles, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, Quezon City, and the Sheriff of Quezon City, Petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Petra R. Farin and Benjamin Farin, G.R. Nos. L-34317 & L-34335, November 28, 1973, Supreme Court Second Division, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners include Marcelo Steel Corporation, the CFI judge Hon. Walfrido de los Angeles (in his official capacity), and the Sheriff of Quezon City; respondents are Petra R. Farin and Benjamin Farin (the mortgagors) and the Court of Appeals as the body whose decision was reviewed. The dispute arose from an extrajudicial foreclosure under a mortgage executed October 30, 1964 securing a P600,000 promissory note over land (T.C.T. No. 42589). On July 24, 1965, Marcelo Steel Corporation petitioned the Sheriff for extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, prompting the Sheriff to schedule a public auction for August 26, 1965.
On August 21, 1965, the Farins filed a petition for Prohibition with Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. Q-9384) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal praying, inter alia, that the Sheriff be enjoined from proceeding with the auction; the trial judge issued a status quo order the same day. After trial the CFI rendered judgment on October 3, 1970 dismissing the Farins' petition, awarding attorney’s fees and damages to Marcelo Steel, and lifting the August 21, 1965 status quo order; the Farins received a copy October 15, 1970 and filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal on October 30, 1970.
Acting on Marcelo Steel’s renewed verified petition to the Sheriff (filed October 19, 1970), the Sheriff scheduled a public auction for December 9, 1970. The Farins filed an “Urgent Motion to Require Respondents to Desist From Proceeding With The Public Auction Sale” on December 2, 1970; the trial judge denied that motion on December 9, 1970, and the Sheriff conducted the foreclosure sale that day with Marcelo Steel as highest bidder. On the same day the CFI approved the record on appeal. Thereafter, Marcelo Steel filed an independent petition for a writ of possession in L.R.C. Rec. No. 7681 (January 12, 1971); the CFI required submission of evidence (Jan. 18, 1971) and, after receiving Marcelo Steel’s evidence, granted the writ of possession on February 4, 1971. The Farins then secured relief from the Court of Appeals: the appellate court granted their petition for certiorari (CA-...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the filing of the Farins' appeal from the CFI decision dismissing their petition for prohibition automatically revive or continue the preliminary status quo injunction such that the Sheriff and the trial court were barred from proceeding with the foreclosure and related writ of possession?
- Could the Sheriff lawfully proceed with an extrajudicial foreclosure sale and could the trial court properly issue a writ of possession to the purchaser under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, notwithstanding the pendency of the Farins’ appeal?
- Was the action for prohibition the proper remedy for the Farins or did Section 8 of Act No. 3135 (and the summary remedy under Section 112 of Act No. 496...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)