Case Digest (G.R. No. 121494)
Facts:
Spouses Victor Ong and Grace Tiu Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121494, June 08, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Spouses Victor Ong and Grace Tiu Ong were mortgagors of an 857-square-meter lot and residence evidenced by TCT No. (53788) 030‑R, which had been encumbered to secure promissory notes of Kenlene Laboratories, Inc.; Premiere Development Bank was the mortgagee. After the debtor corporation defaulted, the bank conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, became the highest bidder at the public sale, and during the one‑year redemption period filed LRC Case No. R‑4874 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 159, seeking a writ of possession.Upon the bank's filing of the required bond, the trial court issued a writ of possession. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and to Recall Writ of Possession in the trial court, which was denied. Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals CA‑G.R. SP. No. 34636 a petition for prohibition with application for a preliminary mandatory injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of possession, alleging a pending separate civil action for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure, Civil Case No. 64604, before RTC, Pasig, Branch 157.
The Court of Appeals initially granted a temporary restraining order but thereafter dismissed the petition for prohibition on three grounds: (1) failure to allege absence of an adequate remedy (as required under Rule 65, Sec. 2), (2) forum‑shopping (the CA did not elaborate), and (3) reliance on Veloso v. Intermediate Appellate Court that pendency of a civil action for annulment does not prevent issuance of a writ of possession; the CA also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to assail the CA decision. In their Supreme Court memorandum petitioners argued that appeal under Act 496 was unavailable or inadequate and that implementation of the writ would render nugatory their pending annulment case; the bank countered that st...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 65, Sec. 2 and the applicable foreclosure statutes, does prohibition lie to enjoin the issuance or implementation of a writ of possession obtained after extrajudicial foreclosure?
- Did petitioners engage in forum‑shopping by filing the petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals while pursuing a separate action for an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)