Case Digest (G.R. No. 171870)
Facts:
Spouses Antonio F. Alagar and Aurora Alagar v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 171870, March 16, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Spouses Antonio and Aurora Alagar; the respondent is Philippine National Bank (PNB). The dispute arose from loans and mortgages: in April 1992 the Alagars obtained a personal loan from PNB secured by a 368-sq.m. lot (OCT 0-3576, General Luna, Vigan). Their personal loan was later increased, and separately the Alagars (through their corporation New Taj Resources, Inc., and as solidary obligors) were involved in a corporate loan secured by another parcel (Pantay Daya). By May 31, 1997 the Alagars’ personal-loan balance grew, but after negotiations and partial payments the bank allegedly condoned interest and the Alagars tendered payment and sought release of the General Luna title; PNB refused, citing other unsettled obligations and a mortgage clause covering "any and all other obligations."
On January 12, 2001 the Alagars filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Vigan to compel PNB to release the General Luna title and claimed damages. PNB answered that mandamus was improper for contractual obligations and that the bank had a right to retain the title under the mortgage’s broad securing clause; it also defended on the merits.
At trial the Alagars offered their exhibits June 26, 2001; the RTC set PNB’s case presentation for July 30, 2001 but PNB’s counsel did not appear. The RTC deemed PNB to have waived its presentation and submitted the case for decision. PNB sent a letter seeking 60 days to retain new counsel; new counsel Atty. Sotero entered appearance August 6, 2001 and filed a motion for reconsideration and to present evidence, which the RTC denied on August 7, 2001 for technical defects under Rule 15 (Secs. 3 & 5). A hearing set by Atty. Sotero for September 17, 2001 proceeded without him and the RTC reiterated submission for decision. PNB’s omnibus motion of October 5, 2001 was denied October 29, 2001 for failing to plead when it received prior orders and for counsel’s inadequate excuse.
On January 15, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment for the Alagars, treating the pleading as a specific-performance claim and ordering release of the title and damages. PNB moved for new trial/reconsideration; the RTC denied it March 25, 2002 and then on April 29, 2002 denied due course to PNB’s appeal as filed beyond 15 days, labelling the motion pro forma. The RTC issued a writ of execution June 4, 2002; PNB sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP 71116 and separately asked the RTC to quash the writ. The RTC denied the quash motion July 17, 2002 and later issued an alias writ; the RTC also ordered cancellation of the mortgage on the title (August 4, 2003) and went through a series of conflicting amendments, motions for reconsideration, and orders between October 2003 and March 2004, including recall of the writ and partial deletions of an amended dispositive paragraph.
PNB supplemented its CA petition to challenge RTC actions after March 25, 2002. On September 30, 2005 the CA in CA‑G.R. SP 71116 annulled and set aside the RTC orders beginning March 25, 2002, holding that PNB’s motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and therefore tolled the period to appeal; as a consequence the RTC decision was not final and executory and could not support execution. The CA also found grave abuse in the RTC’s substantive amendment to add cancellation of mortgage. The Alagars’ motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied, and they brought the present petition for review to the Supreme Court.
The petition to the Supreme Court raises t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to rule that PNB was estopped from assailing the validity of the writ of execution after it had complied with that writ?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to rule that it could no longer nullify the RTC orders that PNB assailed by supplemental petition because more than 60 days had elapsed (finality under Rule 65)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to rule that PNB invoked the wrong remedy—i.e., that its petition was not one for mandamus ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)