G.R. No. 248140 - Uy vs. 3Tops de Philippines Estate Corp.

The dispute arises from an Ex Parte Petition for issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 (as amended by Act No. 4118) filed on February 20, 2018, by respondent 3Tops De Philippines Estate Corporation through its President, Oscar M. Chua, before the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 45.
The subject properties consist of two parcels of land with commercial buildings, evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 092-2014000935 and 092-2014000936, previously owned by Lucy S. Uy.
Lucy S. Uy had mortgaged the properties as security for a loan taken in 1995 from RCBC. In 2007, RCBC assigned its rights to Star Two, Inc.
After Lucy defaulted on her obligation, Star Two consolidated the foreclosed properties in its name in 2013 through extrajudicial foreclosure.
On January 8, 2014, Star Two sold the properties to respondent, who subsequently effected the transfer and titling of the properties in its own name.

The RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 45, handled the Ex Parte Petition and subsequently issued a writ of possession based on its Order dated April 24, 2018.
A Notice to Vacate was issued on May 10, 2018, directing Lucy and all adverse occupants to vacate the subject properties.
Petitioner Jacqueline S. Uy, acting in the interest of her mother, Lucy (the former occupant), filed an Urgent Motion on May 25, 2018, seeking to admit her opposition, reconsider the RTC’s earlier Order, and hold in abeyance the writ of possession and Notice to Vacate.
The RTC later issued Orders denying petitioner's motions—first on July 17, 2018 (denial of Urgent Motion) and then on September 17, 2018 (denial of Motion for Reconsideration).

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari (with applications for TRO/WPI) before the CA, challenging the trial court’s decisions and the issuance of the writ of possession.
The CA, in its January 16, 2019 Resolution, dismissed the petition with the finding that the proper remedy for an order granting a writ of possession is an appeal pursuant to Act No. 3135, not a petition for certiorari.
A subsequent CA Resolution dated July 1, 2019, reaffirmed the dismissal and noted that petitioner’s relief was moot due to her voluntary surrender of the subject properties.

Whether petitioner availed of the correct remedy for challenging the RTC’s Orders dated July 17, 2018 and September 17, 2018.
Whether the proper remedy was appeal under Act No. 3135 or certiorari, given the circumstances of the foreclosure and issuance of the writ of possession.

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Urgent Motion and Motion for Reconsideration.
Whether the trial court’s actions were arbitrary or whimsical, justifying intervention through a petition for certiorari.

Whether petitioner’s voluntary surrender of the subject properties rendered the relief sought moot.
The impact of petitioner’s surrender on her ability to challenge the issuance of the writ of possession.