Case Summary (B.M. No. 914)
Facts of the Case
Petitioner Jeffrey Dayrit and his wife, Marina Valencia Dayrit, availed a loan of PHP 15 million from the Respondent bank, which was secured by their residential property in White Plains, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. RT 14505 and RT 14504. Upon defaulting on the loan, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage and purchased the property at a public auction, eventually obtaining a certificate of sale. When the Dayrits refused to surrender the property, the bank filed a petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Trial Court Proceedings
Initially, the Dayrits appeared at a hearing but did not attend subsequent hearings, leading the court to allow the bank to present evidence ex parte. On August 10, 1995, the court granted a writ of possession in favor of the bank. After receiving the decision on September 15, 1995, the Dayrits filed a motion for reconsideration thirty-two days later, claiming they had not received notices for subsequent hearings and the decision itself. The trial court denied the motion.
Court of Appeals' Ruling
The Dayrits appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal on July 2, 1999, due to its late filing and lack of merit. The appellate court reaffirmed the trial court’s writ of possession, citing that the appeal was filed outside the fifteen-day period allowed for appeals under Section 8(a) of the Interim Rules, alongside the observation that questioning the legality of the mortgage contract was not permissible through a writ of possession petition.
Issues Raised
The main issues for resolution include whether the Petitioner was denied due process; the propriety of the ex parte presentation of evidence; the ministerial nature of issuing the writ of possession; and whether the appeal was filed in a timely manner.
Petitioner’s Argument
The Petitioner contended that he was denied due process when the trial court allowed the Respondent to present its evidence without his presence, arguing that no law permits such ex parte evidence presentation after the redemption period has passed. He further claimed that he did not receive proper notice of the decision, and thus the appeal period had not expired.
Respondent’s Counterargument
The Respondent argued that the Petitioner’s claims were primarily factual and sought to delay the process, asserting that prior notices had been duly served. The Respondent pointed out that the Petitioner was represented by counsel and was properly notified of all proceedings.
Court’s Analysis on Due Process
The court noted that the Petitioner participated in prior hearings and had opportunities to be heard. It found that he was duly notified of the relevant orders and failed to appear in court without valid reasons. The court held that since he had opportunities for representation and was aware of the proceedings, he could not claim a denial of due process.
Ex Parte Evidence Presentation
Regarding the issuance of the writ of possession, the court reaffirmed its view that this is inherently a ministerial duty of the trial court once the mortgagee has consolidated the title
...continue readingCase Syllabus (B.M. No. 914)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review filed by Jeffrey Dayrit against the Philippine Bank of Communications, seeking the reversal of a decision by the Court of Appeals that affirmed a writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
- The RTC's decision was rendered in L.R.C. Case No. Q-6570 (94) on August 10, 1995, which granted the bank possession of the property used as collateral for a loan after the Dayrits failed to fulfill their payment obligations.
Background Facts
- Jeffrey Dayrit and his wife, Marina Valencia Dayrit, secured a loan of P15 million from the Philippine Bank of Communications, posting their house and lot as collateral.
- Following their default on the loan, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage, sold the property at a public auction, and was the highest bidder, receiving a certificate of sale.
- After the redemption period lapsed in May 1993, the bank moved to consolidate titles, leading to the issuance of new titles in its name.
- The Dayrits refused to vacate the property, prompting the bank to file for a writ of possession.
Procedural History
- The Dayrits initially appeared at the first hearing expressing a desire to settle the obligation but failed to attend subsequent hearings, leading the trial court to allow the bank to present evidence ex parte.
- The trial court issued a decision in favor of the bank on August 10, 1995, and the Da