Case Digest (G.R. No. 123050)
Facts:
Suico Industrial Corporation, Sps. Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico v. Court of Appeals and PDCP Development Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 123050, January 20, 1999, First Division of the Supreme Court, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Suico Industrial Corporation (represented by its president, Esmeraldo Suico) and spouses Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico obtained a P2,500,000 loan from respondent Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP Bank) on January 19, 1987, secured by two Mandaue City, Cebu parcels covered by TCT Nos. 18324 and 23116. In 1991 petitioners obtained a second P2,000,000 loan secured by the same parcels.
Because petitioners defaulted, PDCP Bank conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure; it was adjudged highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale dated February 29, 1993 was issued in PDCP Bank’s favor. Petitioners did not redeem within the one‑year period, and titles were consolidated into new TCT Nos. 34988 and 34987 in PDCP Bank’s name.
PDCP Bank filed an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mandaue City, Branch 28 on November 16, 1994; the Branch 28 judge granted the petition on December 8, 1994 and the writ of possession issued December 15, 1994. Before enforcement, petitioners filed on December 9, 1994 a Complaint for Specific Performance, Injunction and Damages (with prayer for restraining order) in RTC Branch 56 seeking to enjoin PDCP Bank from selling the mortgaged properties and from taking physical possession.
On January 17, 1995 RTC Branch 56 granted a preliminary injunction restraining PDCP Bank, its representatives and assigns from disposing of or taking possession of the parcels until further order, conditioned on a P50,000 bond; the court deferred resolution of PDCP Bank’s motion to dismiss. The writ of preliminary injunction was issued January 18, 1995. RTC Branch 56 denied PDCP Bank’s motion for reconsideration and motion to dismiss in an Order dated June 21, 1995.
PDCP Bank filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction before the Court of Appeals on June 26, 1995, seeking to set aside RTC Branch 56’s injunction so the writ of possession from Branch 28 could be implemented. The Court of Appeals, Special Second Division, rendered a decision on August 28, 1995 granting the petition and setting aside the January 17, 1995 order of RTC Branch 56 on the ground that Branch 56 exceeded its jurisdiction in enjoining enforcement of a writ of possession issued by a court of concurrent jurisdiction and that issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser after consolidation of title is a ministerial duty of the trial court. A motion for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did RTC Branch 56 commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that prevented enforcement of the writ of possession issued by RTC Branch 28?
- Was respondent PDCP Bank entitled to the writ of possession as a ministerial matter after consolidation of title, and was petitioners’ proper remedy a petition under Section 8 of Act No...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)