Case Digest (G.R. No. 213673)
Facts:
In re: Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession, G.R. No. 213673, March 02, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Philippine National Bank (PNB); respondent is Alma T. Placencia Fontanoza (Alma).Spouses Salvador and Alma Fontanoza obtained a bank loan from PNB and mortgaged a parcel of land in Barangay Dao, Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur (OCT No. P-29979). After they failed to pay, PNB foreclosed and, as sole bidder at the public auction on January 8, 2002, acquired the lot for P236,000.00; the sale was recorded at the Registry of Deeds on January 28, 2002. Alma did not redeem within the one‑year redemption period.
PNB filed an ex parte petition for issuance of writ of possession on July 18, 2011 (SP Case No. 2011-50-090). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, granted the petition in a Resolution dated August 17, 2011; that Resolution became final and executory on September 15, 2011 as shown by a Certificate of Finality. More than two months later (November 25, 2011), Alma filed an opposition with urgent motion to recall the writ and also filed Civil Case No. 2011-20-458 seeking annulment of the foreclosure or specific performance based on an alleged contract of repurchase and asserted payments toward repurchase.
The RTC ordered PNB and Alma to present evidence (Order dated December 19, 2011). PNB maintained Alma’s alleged payments were unaccepted offers and that deposits were returned (including a Manager’s Check allegedly encashed by Alma). PNB argued the issuance of the writ is a ministerial act in an ex parte proceeding and that a pending annulment suit does not bar issuance of the writ. Alma submitted receipts, deposit slips and a Notice of Lis Pendens and contended she was in possession as a purchaser by repurchase, not as mortgagor.
In an Order dated February 21, 2012, the RTC denied Alma’s opposition for lack of merit and ordered her and all claiming rights to vacate and to give possession to PNB. Alma appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a January 23, 2014 Decision, set aside the RTC’s order, relying on this Court’s decision in Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court (245 Phil. 316) and reasoning that PNB’s long delay in seeking the writ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Court’s decision in Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court applicable to justify setting aside the RTC’s order denying Alma’s motion to recall a writ of possession that had become final and executory?
- Does PNB’s alleged delay in applying for the writ of possession and/or Alma’s continued possession of the property justify setting aside the RTC’s denial of her motion to recall the writ?
- Can a writ of possession issued under a resolution that has become final and executory still be disturbed by a subsequent motion to recall or by a CA decision setting aside the RTC’s denial of su...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)