Case Digest (G.R. No. 168088)
Facts:
San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. v. Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation and Dominic G. Aquino, G.R. No. 168088, April 04, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from two loans secured by Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation (PODC) by real estate mortgage over a 61,579-sq.m. lot (TCT No. 275745-R) in favor of San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. (petitioner) and Masantol Rural Bank, Inc. Petitioner foreclosed extrajudicially; at the April 23, 2001 auction it was the winning bidder and the Ex-Officio Sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale annotated on TCT No. 275745-R on June 7, 2001. Petitioner did not seek a writ of possession during the one-year redemption period.
On May 11, 2002 PODC executed a notarized Deed of Assignment purporting to assign its right of redemption to Dominic G. Aquino (respondent Aquino). Aquino tendered payment in stages and, after the Ex-Officio Sheriff computed the redemption price at P5,194,742.50, Aquino paid that amount on June 7, 2002; the Sheriff issued a Certificate of Redemption and receipts. Petitioner, however, disputed the correct redemption amount (insisting it included a P950,000 spouses’ loan and other items) and filed an Affidavit of Consolidation on June 10, 2002 seeking consolidation and issuance of a new title in its favor; it refused to turn over the owner’s duplicate title to the Sheriff.
Petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Fernando (LRC No. 890), a petition for issuance of a writ of possession (October 15, 2002). The RTC granted the petition on December 20, 2002, ordered issuance of the writ of possession (with a bond equivalent to market value), and denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on February 18, 2003. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 75787) assailing the RTC orders as grave abuse of discretion, arguing Aquino had validly redeemed the property within the statutory redemption period and that the LRA’s consulta over registrability required restraint. Meanwhile the RTC executed the writ and placed petitioner in possession (May 14, 2003). Petitioner also filed Civil Case No. 12785 in the RTC seeking nullification of the Deed of Assignment and the Certificate of Redemption.
The Land Registration Authority (LRA) initially issued a consulta favoring petitioner because the Certificate of Redemption was not registered within the one-year period; later the LRA Administrator reversed and held the Certificate of Redemption superior and registrable. The CA granted respondents’ petition and set aside the RTC orders on December 18, 2003, reasoning that the Certificat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct to entertain respondents’ petition for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than require appeal, i.e., was the RTC order granting a writ of possession interlocutory or final?
- Were respondents guilty of forum shopping by pursuing both certiorari and appeal on substantially the same issues?
- Did the Court of Appeals err by deciding matters (such as registrability and validity of redemption/assignment) that were not properly before it?
- Is this Court precluded from reviewing the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in this Rule 45 petition?
- Had the redemption period already expired under Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)