Case Digest (G.R. No. 149121)
Facts:
National Housing Authority v. Augusto Basa, Jr., Luz Basa and Eduardo S. Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April 20, 2010, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.On April 19, 1983, spouses Augusto and Luz Basa obtained a loan of P556,827.10 from the National Housing Authority (NHA) secured by real‑estate mortgages over parcels covered by TCT Nos. 287008 and 285413 in Quezon City. The Basas defaulted and, after demands, NHA filed a verified petition for extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, as amended, on August 9, 1990. After notice and publication the properties were sold at public auction and NHA was the highest bidder.
Because the original certificates of title kept by the Register of Deeds had been destroyed in a 1988 fire, the sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered and annotated on April 16, 1991 only on the owner’s duplicate copies of the titles in the respondents’ possession. The one‑year redemption period ran, and on April 16, 1992 respondents had not redeemed; NHA executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership on April 24, 1992.
NHA filed a petition for a writ of possession June 18, 1992; the RTC granted the petition in an August 4, 1992 Order. A writ of possession issued March 9, 1993 but remained unserved, prompting NHA to move for an alias writ on April 28, 1993. While that motion was pending, respondents (the Basas and Eduardo Basa) filed on June 2, 1993 a Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition in Intervention under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, seeking to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession; they alleged defective posting/publication and that the sheriff’s certificate was not effectively registered on the originals (only on the owner’s duplicates), so the one‑year redemption period had not begun to run (invoking Bass v. De la Rama and Bernardez v. Reyes).
The RTC, by Order dated January 2, 1995, admitted the petition in intervention (treating it as a petition to set aside the sale under Sec. 8) granted issuance of an alias writ of possession and issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining NHA from selling or disposing of the properties pending termination of the proceeding. The RTC denied NHA’s motion for reconsideration on September 4, 1995.
NHA filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 24, 1995. The CA’s Decision of February 24, 2000 granted the petition, declared null and void the RTC orders insofar as they admitted intervention and granted the preliminary injunction, but affirmed issuance of the alias writ of possession. Respondents moved for reconsideration; the CA’s Amended Decision of November 27, 2000 reversed its earlier position and held that annotat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did NHA substantially comply with Section 4, Rule 45 (attachments) and with the verification requirements of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court so that the petition should be considered on the merits?
- Is the entry of the sheriff’s certificate of sale in the primary entry book and its annotation on the owner’s duplicate certificate of title sufficient to constitute registration so that the one‑year redemption period ran from April 16, 1991 (and hence expired April 16, 1992)?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting respondents’ intervention and issuing a preliminary injunction that restrained NHA’s exercise of its right to possession, or w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)