Facts:
Spouses Ricardo Rosales and Erlinda Sibug, petitioners, sought review of the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated November 25, 1998 and February 26, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 49634 after the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Manila rendered a Decision on June 13, 1997 in Civil Cases Nos. 94-72303 and 94-72379. The RTC declared the parties' transaction an
equitable mortgage, adjudged petitioners to deposit with the Clerk of Court within ninety days the sum of P65,000.00 with nine percent interest from September 30, 1982 plus P219.76 for real estate taxes, and directed reconveyance to petitioners upon payment or sale of the property for noncompliance. The decision became final and executory, but petitioners failed to make the deposit. Judgment creditor Felicisimo Macaspac moved for execution and later filed a supplemental motion claiming P243,864.08 as due. The court issued a writ of execution on March 25, 1998, and an auction on May 15, 1998 sold the property to
Spouses Alfonso and Lourdes Suba, respondents, for P285,000.00. The RTC confirmed the sale on July 15, 1998 and directed issuance of a final deed; the Register of Deeds issued a new Transfer Certificate of Title in respondents' names on August 3, 1998. Respondents moved for a writ of possession on August 18, 1998, and petitioners moved for reconsideration and for appointment of a certified public accountant to compute the judgment debt. On October 19, 1998 the trial court granted respondents' motion for a writ of possession and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition for lack of merit and denied reconsideration, leading to this petition for review on certiorari, G.R. No. 137792.
Issues:
Did petitioners possess a statutory
right of redemption after the judicial foreclosure sale of the property that would entitle them to redeem within one year from registration of the certificate of sale. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of possession to respondents and denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: