Case Summary (G.R. No. 157660)
Background Facts
The Respondent was the highest bidder at the public auction held on May 20, 1999, resulting in the issuance of a Certificate of Sale, which was annotated on the land title. The redemption period expired on May 20, 2000, during which the Petitioner failed to redeem the property. Consequently, the Respondent consolidated its title, and a new title reflecting this consolidation was issued on August 30, 2000. On January 18, 2001, the Respondent filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession in accordance with Act No. 3135.
Trial Court Proceedings
The Petitioner opposed this petition, claiming an ongoing action for the declaration of nullity of the foreclosure proceedings, which had been filed on May 16, 2000. However, on May 18, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the Respondent's request for a writ of possession, a decision that the Petitioner later sought to challenge via a motion for reconsideration, subsequently denied. The Petitioner then sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA).
Court of Appeals Decision
On March 14, 2003, the CA dismissed the Petitioner’s petition for certiorari, asserting the need for the prompt possession of the property by the purchaser post-foreclosure, per legal provisions. The CA determined that an appeal was the appropriate remedy, thus negating the Petitioner's grounds for a writ of certiorari.
Legal Basis for Certiorari
The decision highlighted the requirements under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which specifies that certiorari is available when there is a lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by an official or tribunal. The CA found no grounds to support the Petitioner's argument that certiorari was warranted, as an adequate remedy—an appeal—remained available.
Distinction and Relevant Jurisprudence
The CA contrasted the circumstances of this case with prior rulings where certiorari was deemed proper despite available appeals. However, it concluded that such exceptions were not relevant here, as the matter did not involve pressing public welfare interests, and adherence to outlined procedures under Act No. 3135 was deemed more appropriate.
Right to Possession
The issuance of the writ of possession was characterized as a ministerial act, reaffirming that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157660)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Eligio P. Mallari against Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.
- The petition seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 14, 2003, which dismissed Mallari's petition for certiorari.
- The legal proceedings stem from a loan obtained by Mallari from the respondent bank, secured by a mortgage on a parcel of land in Pampanga.
Factual Background
- Mallari executed a Deed of Mortgage over his property to secure a loan from Banco Filipino.
- Due to non-payment of the loan, the bank conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property.
- Banco Filipino emerged as the highest bidder during the public auction, with the Certificate of Sale recorded on May 20, 1999.
- Mallari failed to redeem the property before the one-year redemption period expired on May 20, 2000.
- The bank consolidated its title to the property, canceling Mallari's certificate of title and obtaining a new title on August 30, 2000.
Court Proceedings
- On January 18, 2001, Banco Filipino filed an Ex-Parte Petition for a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Mallari opposed the petition, claiming there was an ongoing case for the declaration of nullity regarding the foreclosure proceedings, filed on May 16, 2000.
- The RTC granted the writ of possession on May 18, 2001, despite Mallari'