Facts:
Eduardo D. Monsanto,
Decoroso D. Monsanto, Sr., and
Rev. Fr. Pascual D. Monsanto, Jr. were mortgagor-related parties who contested an alleged anomalous extra-judicial foreclosure and auction sale of a residential property conducted by Sheriff
Lorenzo De Guzman on January 15, 2004, in Catbalogan, Samar, after which
Leoncio Lim emerged as the highest bidder at P500,000.00. On February 18, 2004 the
Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG) wrote Executive Judge Sinforiano A. Monsanto requesting intervention and annulment of the sale because De Guzman allegedly ignored a request to defer the auction to January 20, 2004 and because the bid was grossly disadvantageous to the government; Executive Judge Monsanto reassigned the letter to
RTC-Branch 28 Judge Sibanah E. Usman, who in a May 3, 2004 Order observed that no formal petition or complaint had been filed and that the matter appeared administrative and thus referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). On March 13, 2004 Pascual furnished the OCA and the RTC Branches 27 and 28 with a Motion to Lift Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate alleging harassment by the sheriff and prejudice from enforcement of the writ; the OCA, by letter dated May 9, 2005, instructed Judge Usman to investigate missing records and to act on specified items of the motion, and Judge Usman scheduled a hearing for June 14, 2005. Pag-IBIG manifested on June 7, 2005 that it had restructured Eduardo’s loan and withdrew its petition for extra-judicial foreclosure, while Leoncio opposed that manifestation; Leoncio had earlier filed, on April 11, 2005 with Branch 27, a Manifestation with Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession claiming the reglementary redemption period had elapsed. On July 1, 2005
RTC-Branch 28 issued an Order denying the motion to lift the writ of execution, finding the auction and Certificate of Sale in order, and granting Lim’s motion for issuance of a writ of possession; the court denied motions for reconsideration in an August 30, 2005 Order. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01343), which on March 12, 2007 denied relief and affirmed the RTC orders; the CA denied reconsideration on July 6, 2007. Petitioners then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, which rendered its decision on September 17, 2014.
Issues:
Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the matter when it resolved the motions and granted a writ of possession despite the absence of a formal initiatory pleading? Was the filing of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale with the Register of Deeds sufficient to effect registration and to commence the one-year redemption period? Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that petitioners were afforded due process and were properly notified of the proceedings? Did the actions of the sheriff in enforcing the notice to vacate and writ of possession while motions for reconsideration were pending constitute reversible irregularity?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: