G.R. No. 237813 - Dubongco vs. Commission on Audit

Petitioners Spouses Ricardo Rosales and Erlinda Sibug (hereinafter “petitioners”) were judgment debtors under Civil Cases Nos. 94-72303 and 94-72379 before the RTC, Branch 13, Manila.
Respondents Spouses Alfonso and Lourdes Suba (hereinafter “respondents”) became purchasers of the subject property at a judicial foreclosure sale.
Judgment creditors were Felicisimo Macaspac and Elena Jiao, who contested petitioners’ title and claimed payment of P65,000 plus interest and taxes.

Declared the Deed of Sale (Exhs. D, G, I) as an equitable mortgage.
Directed petitioners to deposit P65,000 with interest at 9% p.a. from September 30, 1982, plus P219.76 for taxes, within 90 days from finality.
Ordered reconveyance to petitioners upon payment or judicial sale in case of default.

The Decision became final and executory; petitioners failed to comply with the 90-day deposit directive.

Macaspac filed for execution; petitioners questioned finality and exact amount due, leading to motions before the RTC.
On March 25, 1998, the RTC issued a writ of execution ordering public auction under Rule 68, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On May 15, 1998, the property was auctioned and sold to respondents for P285,000 as highest bidders.
On July 15, 1998, the RTC confirmed the sale and ordered issuance of a final deed of sale.
On August 3, 1998, the Register of Deeds issued a new Transfer Certificate of Title in respondents’ names.

Petitioners moved for appointment of an independent accountant to determine the correct debt; Macaspac sought disbursement of proceeds to him.
Respondents filed for a writ of possession on August 18, 1998, asserting petitioners’ equity of redemption had been cut off.
On October 19, 1998, the RTC granted respondents’ writ of possession and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, ruling no right of redemption in judicial foreclosure.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 49634), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
On November 25, 1998, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and denied reconsideration on February 26, 1999.

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of possession to respondents and denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Whether petitioners retained a right of redemption under Rule 39, Section 9 and Section 25, or under any law, after judicial foreclosure of an equitable mortgage.