Facts:

This case involves the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as the petitioner and Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc. (GOTESCO) as the respondent. The events leading to this petition began on April 7, 1995, when PNB, alongside other banks including Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCB), and Citytrust Banking Corporation (CBC), agreed to extend credit facilities worth ₱800,000,000.00 to GOTESCO. To secure this credit, GOTESCO executed a Mortgage Trust Indenture over a parcel of land in Pasig City, documented by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. PT-97306. However, GOTESCO failed to repay the full amount. Consequently, PNB, MBTC, UCB, and CBC initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged property. The property was auctioned off on July 30, 1999, with PNB as the highest bidder, acquiring it for ₱1,240,000,496.82. A Certificate of Sale was issued on August 4, 1999, subsequently registered on November 9, 1999. The one-year redemption perio

...

Facts:

Parties and Credit Facility Arrangement

• Philippine National Bank (PNB), together with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCB), and Citytrust Banking Corporation (CBC), extended credit facilities amounting to P800,000,000.00 to Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc. (GOTESCO).
• To secure this credit, GOTESCO executed a Mortgage Trust Indenture over a parcel of land in Pasig City, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. PT-97306.

Default, Foreclosure, and Auction

• GOTESCO, having availed itself of the full credit line, failed to settle the amount due, prompting the banks to institute foreclosure proceedings against the property.
• The property was subsequently auctioned on July 30, 1999, where PNB emerged as the highest bidder with a winning bid of P1,240,000,496.82.
• A Certificate of Sale was issued on August 4, 1999 and the sale was properly registered on November 9, 1999.

Title Consolidation and Ex Parte Petition

• After the expiration of the one-year redemption period without GOTESCO exercising its right of redemption, PNB consolidated the property title in its name and was issued TCT No. PT-127557 on July 18, 2005.
• PNB filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the RTC of Pasig City, docketed as LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG.

Consolidation of Cases

• GOTESCO moved to consolidate LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG with its pending case for annulment of foreclosure proceedings, specific performance, and damages (Civil Case No. 68139), seeking to challenge the foreclosure itself.
• On August 24, 2006, RTC Branch 155, presided by Hon. Judge Luis R. Tongco, granted the motion for consolidation, ordering that the records be merged with the civil case pending in Branch 161.

Motion for Reconsideration and Subsequent Court Actions

• PNB’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before RTC Branch 161 was denied, with the court holding that the consolidation was within its discretion.
• PNB elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, but its petition was dismissed on March 12, 2008, with the CA citing authorities such as Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Rodolfo C. MaAalac, Jr. to justify the consolidation under Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• PNB later filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, which was denied on June 6, 2008.

Request for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Additional Arguments

• On March 27, 2009, amidst the pendency of the consolidated cases, PNB sought a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin proceedings in both LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG and Civil Case No. 68139.
• PNB argued that its petition for a writ of possession—a summary, non-litigious proceeding—was being unlawfully delayed and prejudiced by the consolidation with GOTESCO’s litigious civil action.
• The allegation was that this consolidation frustrated PNB’s right to immediate possession of the foreclosed property and effectively rendered its petition moot once further evidentiary proceedings commenced.

Judicial Findings on Consolidation

• The trial court, as well as the CA, found that consolidation was permissible under Section 1, Rule 31, emphasizing judicial economy and convenience.
• However, it was also noted that while consolidation generally promotes efficient case management, it must not result in undue prejudice or delay to any party’s rights, particularly when one proceeding is ex parte and summary in nature.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

• The Supreme Court found that the consolidation of PNB’s ex parte petition with GOTESCO’s civil action defeated the purpose of a prompt, summary proceeding aimed at providing immediate relief.
• Citing earlier decisions and established doctrines, the Court held that once the redemption period had expired, the purchaser’s right to possession became absolute and should not be hindered by the merging of proceedings.
• Consequently, the Court granted PNB’s petition, set aside the CA decision and RTC orders favoring the consolidation, and ordered that the ex parte petition for a writ of possession and the civil action be heard independently.

Issue:

The Legality and Appropriateness of the Consolidation

• Whether the consolidation of PNB’s ex parte petition for a writ of possession with GOTESCO’s civil action for annulment of foreclosure proceedings is proper under the circumstances.
• Whether such consolidation conforms to the requirements of Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Prejudice and Delay

• Whether the consolidation prejudiced PNB’s right to the immediate, summary issuance of a writ of possession.
• Whether merging the summary ex parte proceedings with a substantive civil action resulted in undue delay in the resolution of the rights of the parties.

Abuse of Judicial Discretion

• Whether the RTC and subsequently the CA abused their discretion in granting and upholding the motion for consolidation.
• Whether the consolidation effectively gave GOTESCO an undue advantage by permitting it to delay PNB’s rightful claim to possession.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)