Case Summary (G.R. No. 207597)
Background Facts
In 1980, Campos mortgaged 14 lots to the Far East Bank and Trust Company (now merged with BPI) to secure a loan of one million pesos. Among these lots was Lot No. 7-G-4. In the late 1980s, Campos constructed a building on the subject lot, allegedly with the bank’s knowledge. However, due to business failures, Campos defaulted on his loan, which subsequently grew to eleven million pesos, prompting the Bank to seek foreclosure.
Foreclosure Process
BPI became the highest bidder during a public auction with a bid of 11.3 million pesos and subsequently consolidated ownership when Campos failed to redeem the properties within the allowed period. BPI filed for a writ of possession, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted on August 7, 2006. The implementation of this writ occurred on September 8, 2006.
Motion for Suspension of Writ of Possession
Campos filed a motion to suspend the writ's implementation on February 12, 2007, asserting he had constructed the building in good faith and demanded reimbursement for its value based on the Civil Code Articles 448, 450, and 546. BPI opposed, arguing that per their mortgage agreement, they had no obligation to reimburse Campos for improvements made post-mortgage.
RTC's Denial of Campos' Motion
The RTC denied Campos' motion on April 16, 2007, explaining that, after the redemption period expired, their duty to issue a writ of possession became ministerial. It noted that any claim for reimbursement should be pursued in a separate action, not in this non-litigious proceeding.
Motion for Reconsideration and Court of Appeals Intervention
Campos moved for reconsideration, referencing Policarpio v. Court of Appeals, where evidence was allowed concerning good faith. However, the RTC denied this on September 10, 2007, stating that Campos' motion came long after the writ had become final.
CA Dismissal of Petition
Campos filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition on July 24, 2012, concluding no grave abuse of discretion existed on the part of the RTC. The CA noted that BPI had the right to demand possession post-redemption and reiterated that Campos's remedy was to file a petition to challenge the writ after being given possession, not beforehand.
Arguments in the Petition
In the Supreme Court petition, Campos reiterated his right to prove he was a builder in good faith and argued about the assessed values of the lots compared to the inflated original loan amount. He claimed he was denied notice of the proceedings, which he argued constituted undue enrichment of the Bank.
Counterarguments by Houston and BPI
Houston filed comments challenging Campos' good faith, asserting that all future improvements were included under the mortgage agreement. BPI reinforced the notion that Campos was mistaken regarding the loan valuation and improperly sought relief through the suspension of the writ of possession.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court denied Campos' petition, maintaining that it is not a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 207597)
Background of the Case
- This case arises from a petition for review on certiorari filed by Anecito Campos, challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of his petition against the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), now represented by Houston HomeDepot, Inc.
- The core issue concerns the denial of Campos' motion to suspend the implementation of a writ of possession in CAD Case No. 06-2266.
Antecedents
- In 1980, Campos mortgaged fourteen lots to Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) to secure a loan of one million pesos.
- Among these lots was Lot No. 7-G-4, which Campos later developed into a two-storey building in the late 1980s, allegedly with the bank's consent.
- Due to significant business losses, Campos defaulted on the loan, leading to it ballooning to eleven million pesos.
- The bank pursued extrajudicial foreclosure, acquiring the properties after a public auction where it was the highest bidder.
- A writ of possession was issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on August 7, 2006, ordering the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff to place the bank in possession of the lots.
Subsequent Proceedings
- After the writ of possession became final and executory, Campos filed a motion on February 12, 2007, to suspend its implementation, claiming he had built the structure on Lot No. 7-G-4 in good faith and with the bank's consent.
- Campos cited provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 546, 448, and 450) to assert his right to retain possession until he was reimbursed for the value of the building.
- The bank opposed the motion, arguing that no obligation to reimburse existed under the mortgage terms, which included all improve