Case Summary (G.R. No. 253253)
Loan Agreement and Security
In 2005, the petitioners obtained a loan amounting to ₱1,700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc. (RBSJ), with an annual interest of 18% and a penalty charge of 5% for default. They later availed themselves of a ₱500,000.00 loan that was secured with the same conditions. A mortgage agreement was executed on September 14, 2005, over a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 218703 in Makati City, serving as collateral for the loans. A subsequent loan of ₱1,000,000.00 was secured against their time deposit in RBSJ.
Loan Default and Foreclosure Proceedings
Payments were made by the petitioners from October 2007 to July 2010. However, on July 24, 2012, RBSJ assigned the rights and interest of the loan account to BDO. A disagreement arose regarding the outstanding balance, leading to BDO filing a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale on February 8, 2013, due to the alleged failure of the petitioners to pay ₱4,699,956.67 (including interest, penalties, and other charges). A public auction was held on April 3, 2013, where BDO was the highest bidder, resulting in a Certificate of Sale dated April 25, 2013.
Judicial Actions by Petitioners
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a civil complaint on March 25, 2013, requesting for a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction against BDO and the sheriff, which was denied due to insufficient evidence. They later amended their complaint, seeking annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale. After a series of procedural events, including BDO sending a notice to vacate and filing for Writ of Possession, the RTC rendered a decision on August 18, 2014, declaring the foreclosure null and void and requiring BDO to reconvey the property upon payment of a reduced amount.
Subsequent Court Decisions
BDO appealed the RTC decision while the petitioners partially appealed, leading to consolidation of cases. On September 2, 2014, the RTC granted BDO's petition for a writ of possession, which was subsequently issued. The petitioners' motions to suspend the enforcement of the writ were denied, leading to their petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed, affirming that the proper remedy would have been an appeal.
Issues Raised by Petitioners
The petitioners contended several errors by the CA, asserting that they acted correctly by seeking a certiorari petition instead of an appeal, disputing the ministerial nature of the writ of possession issuance, and emphasizing an urgent need for injunctive relief due to the risk of losing their residence.
Respondent's Counterarguments
BDO argued that the petitioners had adequate knowledge of the writ of possession and that the procedure followed did not indicate any grave abuse of discretion by the lower courts. They contended that the petitioners resorted incorrectly to certiorari after forfeiting their right to appeal, emphasizing that the existence of a pending judicial action does not preclude the issuance of a writ of possession.
Court's Ruling
The Court concluded that a writ of possession is a ministerial duty following the issuance of a valid order. It emphasized tha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 253253)
Overview
- The case involves a Petition for Review filed by petitioners Jose P. Jayag and Marilyn P. Jayag against BDO Unibank, Inc. and the Ex-Officio Sheriff regarding a decision from the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gesmundo, denied the petition for failure to demonstrate any reversible error by the CA.
Antecedents
- In 2005, the petitioners secured a loan of P1,700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc. (RBSJ), with an 18% annual interest rate and a penalty charge of 5% for late payments.
- The couple subsequently obtained a P500,000.00 loan in 2006 under the same terms and later a P1,000,000.00 loan secured by a time deposit with RBSJ.
- The loans were scheduled to mature on September 24, 2010, with the petitioners making payments from October 2007 to July 2010.
- On July 24, 2012, RBSJ assigned its rights to BDO, leading to a dispute over the outstanding loan balance.
Foreclosure Proceedings
- On February 8, 2013, BDO initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure due to an alleged balance of P4,699,956.67.
- A public auction was held on April 3, 2013, where BDO emerged as the highest bidder, resulting in a Certificate of Sale issued on April 25, 2013, with a redemption period ending on July 5, 2014.
Petitioners' Legal Actions
- On March 25, 2013, the petitioners filed a complaint for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against BDO, which was denied due to insufficient evidence.
- They subsequently filed an Amended Complaint for annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale, which led to an eventual decis