Case Summary (G.R. No. 157659)
Petitioner, Respondent and Property Details
Mallari contracted two loans from GSIS in 1968 secured by two parcels of land registered in his and his wife Marcelina’s names. Total loans: P34,000. Payments made by Mallari in 1978: P10,000 (May 22) and P20,000 (August 11), leaving substantial arrears. GSIS initiated foreclosure proceedings resulting in an extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale, after which titles (TCT No. 284272-R and TCT No. 284273-R) were issued in GSIS’s name.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Significant procedural acts included GSIS’s reminders and telegraphic demand (1979–1981), application for extrajudicial foreclosure (March 21, 1984), extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings commenced (July 21, 1986) and auction held (September 22, 1986). Mallari obtained a favorable RTC ruling nullifying the foreclosure but the Court of Appeals reversed (March 27, 1996) and the Supreme Court denied review and reconsideration (September 16, 1996 and January 15, 1997 respectively), making the CA decision final and executory. GSIS sought execution and a writ of possession in 1999; the RTC issued the writ (October 21, 1999). Mallari filed multiple motions and a second case (Civil Case No. 12053) which was dismissed for res judicata (November 10, 2000). Subsequent RTC orders (including July 30, 2001 and February 11, 2002) directed re-implementation of the writ. Mallari filed a certiorari petition in the CA (March 15, 2002) which the CA dismissed (March 17, 2003); the SC affirmed that dismissal on review.
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
Governing legal texts and rules applied by the courts included: Act No. 3135 (as amended) on extrajudicial sale under special power in real estate mortgages; Sections of Rule 39 on redemption periods and registration effects; Section 4, Rule 65 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended) prescribing a 60-day period for filing certiorari; Section 28 of Rule 39 (current Rules of Court, effective July 1, 1997) on redemption reckoning from registration; Section 4, Rule 71 (1997 Rules) on procedures for indirect contempt; and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 10.03, Canon 10; Rule 12.04, Canon 12) and the Lawyer’s Oath obligations. (The decision applies the 1987 Constitution as the controlling charter.)
Factual Background and Mallari’s Litigation Strategy
Mallari repeatedly sought accounting updates and filed multiple procedural motions spanning several years in an effort to delay foreclosure enforcement and retain possession. After payments in 1978 and GSIS’s eventual extrajudicial foreclosure and sale, Mallari secured an RTC decision nullifying the foreclosure but that decision was reversed by the CA and the reversal was sustained by the Supreme Court, making the extrajudicial foreclosure, auction sale, and issuance of new certificates of title to GSIS final and unassailable. Despite finality, Mallari filed motions for reconsideration, to quash the writ of execution, motions for contempt (alleging GSIS painted fences and ordered power cutoffs), initiated a second suit for consignation, and sought reassignment of the presiding judge through an inhibition motion, all of which delayed enforcement efforts.
Procedural History Leading to the CA Petition
After the Supreme Court’s denial of review, GSIS filed an ex parte motion for execution and a writ of possession in September 1999; the RTC granted execution and issued the writ in October 1999. The sheriff did not immediately serve the writ because Mallari requested an extension of time to vacate, which GSIS granted; Mallari nevertheless did not vacate and continued to file motions. The matter was re-raffled to Branch 48, which denied Mallari’s contempt motions and ordered re-implementation of the writ on July 30, 2001; a motion for reconsideration was denied February 11, 2002. Mallari then filed a petition for certiorari in the CA challenging the relevant RTC orders; the CA dismissed the petition as meritless and part of dilatory tactics. Mallari sought review in the Supreme Court; the SC denied relief and affirmed the CA’s dismissal.
Issue Presented on Appeal
Mallari challenged the CA’s refusal to accept the nullity of the RTC orders granting and implementing the writ of execution cum writ of possession (October 8 and October 21, 1999), ordering re-implementation (July 30, 2001), and denying reconsideration of that re-implementation order (February 11, 2002). He contended, among other points, that he had not been notified of the motion for the writ and that the dismissals of his contempt charges were erroneous.
Supreme Court’s Threshold Ruling on Timeliness
The Supreme Court found the petition for certiorari filed in the CA untimely. The petition challenged RTC orders that were, in substance, final and subject to a 60-day filing period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended). The SC concluded that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary 60-day period and that the 60-day limitation is inextendible because it promotes the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. The SC also characterized Mallari’s later motions for reconsideration as a prohibited second motion and held that they could no longer be attacked by certiorari.
Nature of the Writ of Possession and Legal Effect of Non-Redemption
The Court thoroughly analyzed the legal nature of writs of possession in the context of extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135 (as amended). Key points reproduced and applied by the Court: (1) redemption rights under Act No. 3135 are measured from the registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds; (2) failure to redeem within the one-year redemption period (reckoned from registration) results in consolidation of title in the purchaser and loss of the mortgagor’s interest; (3) upon consolidation of title and issuance of a new TCT in the purchaser’s name, the purchaser becomes absolute owner and may demand possession at any time; and (4) the issuance of a writ of possession to enforce consolidated title in a purchaser following extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial duty of the court and may be issued ex parte and without prior notice to the mortgagor. The SC applied these principles to hold that Mallari, as a non-redeeming mortgagor, was not entitled to prior notice of GSIS’s application for the writ and could not successfully impugn the extrajudicial foreclosure or the writ of possession.
Ministerial Nature of Issuance and Ex Parte Proceeding
The Court emphasized the ministerial character of issuing a writ of possession once a judgment or foreclosure sale has become final and title consolidated in the purchaser; issuance does not require judicial discretion or a prior adversarial hearing. The proceeding is ex parte and summary in nature under Act No. 3135. Because Mallari had failed to redeem within the statutory period and title had consolidated in GSIS, the RTC’s issuance of the writ was ministerial and proper; Mallari’s attempts to challenge it were therefore legally untenable.
Dismissal of Indirect Contempt Charges and Procedural Requirements
The SC upheld the dismissal of Mallari’s motions charging GSIS with indirect contempt. It relied on Section 4, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that indirect contempt proceedings initiated by a party be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified copies of documents, together with compl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157659)
Facts / Antecedents
- In 1968, the petitioner obtained two loans from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) totaling P34,000.00 and mortgaged two parcels of land registered under his and his wife Marcelina Mallari's names as security.
- The petitioner made partial repayments about ten years later: P10,000.00 on May 22, 1978 and P20,000.00 on August 11, 1978 (totaling P30,000.00).
- GSIS repeatedly reminded the petitioner of unpaid obligations: a reminder on May 2, 1979, and a telegraphic demand to update his account on November 2, 1981.
- The petitioner requested a final accounting on November 10, 1981, and later on November 22, 1984, requested an updated computation of his outstanding account.
- GSIS applied for extrajudicial foreclosure on March 21, 1984, due to the petitioner's failure to settle his account.
- On November 29, 1984, the petitioner persuaded the sheriff to hold publication of the foreclosure notice in abeyance to await action on his request for final accounting (taking into account the P30,000.00 paid in 1978).
- GSIS furnished a detailed account explanation on December 13, 1984, and an updated statement on May 30, 1985.
- GSIS finally commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings on July 21, 1986 due to the petitioner's continued nonpayment.
Trial Court Proceedings (Civil Case No. 7802, RTC Branch 44, San Fernando, Pampanga)
- On August 22, 1986 the petitioner sued GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, San Fernando, Pampanga, docketed as Civil Case No. 7802, ostensibly seeking to enjoin foreclosure and with an application for preliminary injunction.
- The RTC initially decided Civil Case No. 7802 in favor of the petitioner: nullified the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale; cancelled Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 284272-R and TCT No. 284273-R issued in the name of GSIS; and reinstated TCT No. 61171-R and TCT No. 54835-R in the names of the petitioner and his wife.
- GSIS appealed the adverse RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC on March 27, 1996.
Appeals to the Supreme Court and Finality of the Foreclosure
- The petitioner elevated the CA decision to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 124468).
- On September 16, 1996, the Supreme Court denied his petition for review. On January 15, 1997, the Court denied his motion for reconsideration.
- The CA decision of March 27, 1996 thus became final and executory, validating the extrajudicial foreclosure, the auction sale held on September 22, 1986, and the issuance of TCT No. 284272-R and TCT No. 284273-R in GSIS's name.
Post-Final-Judgment Execution Proceedings and Subsequent Incidents
- GSIS filed an ex parte motion for execution and for a writ of possession on September 2, 1999.
- The RTC granted the ex parte motion on October 8, 1999. A writ of execution cum writ of possession was issued on October 21, 1999, ordering the sheriff to place GSIS in possession of the properties.
- The sheriff initially failed to serve the writ, partly because the petitioner requested an extension of time to vacate the properties; GSIS acceded to the request.
- The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and/or to quash the writ of execution on March 27, 2000 instead of vacating the properties.
- The petitioner commenced a second RTC case (Civil Case No. 12053) against GSIS and the provincial sheriff for consignation (with a prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO). The RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 12053 on November 10, 2000 on the ground of res judicata. The petitioner appealed that dismissal to the CA (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 70300).
- The petitioner filed motions in Civil Case No. 7802 dated April 5, 2000 and April 17, 2000 seeking to hold GSIS, its local manager Arnulfo B. Cardenas, and others in indirect contempt for (a) painting the fence of the properties and (b) ordering the electric company to cut off electricity, respectively, during pendency of his motion to quash the writ.
- GSIS moved to inhibit the presiding judge of Branch 44 for alleged partiality due to the judge's alleged failure to act on the motion for reconsideration/quash, contempt motions, and motion for break open order for over a year, and prayed for re-raffle to another RTC branch.
- Civil Case No. 7802 was re-assigned to Branch 48. The Branch 48 presiding judge denied the motions for contempt on July 30, 2001 and directed the Branch Clerk of Court to cause re-implementation of the writ of execution cum writ of possession dated October 21, 1999.
- The petitioner sought reconsideration of the July 30, 2001 orders; Branch 48 denied the motion for reconsideration on February 11, 2002.
Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals and CA Ruling (March 17, 2003)
- By petition for certiorari dated March 15, 2002, filed in the CA, the petitioner assailed the RTC orders dated October 8, 1999; October 21, 1999; July 30, 2001; and February 11, 2002.
- On March 17, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
- The CA's reasoning, inter alia:
- Described the petitioner's litigation as employing "legal tactics and maneuvers" to delay disposition of Civil Case No. 7802 which had become final and executory.
- Noted that the petitioner used "all kinds of avenues accorded by the Rules of Court" contrary to the Rules' intendment to secure "a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."
- Cited controlling jurisprudence that once a decision becomes final and executory, generally no notice or prior hearing of a motion for execution is required (citing De Jesus vs. Obnamia, Jr.).
- Quoted Buaya vs. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc.: "once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the issuance of a Writ of Execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court," and emphasized the need to prevent misuse of judicial review to evade final and executory judgments.
- Referred to Tag Fibers, Inc. v. NLRC asserting that "the finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party."
- Concluded that the petition was part of dilatory tactics to stall execution of a final and executory decision and dismissed the petition with costs against the petitioner.
Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- The petitioner urged that the CA gravely erred in refusing "to accept the nullity of the following orders" of the RTC:
- The order dated October 8, 1999 granting the ex parte motion for execution and/or issuance of the writ of execution cum writ of possession in favor of GSIS.
- The order dated October 21, 1999 granting issuance and implementation of the writ of execution cum writ of possession in favor of GSIS.
- The order dated July 30, 2001 directing re-implementation of the writ of execution cum writ of possession in favor of GSIS.
- The order dated February 11, 2002 denying motion for reconsideration in relation to the July 30, 2001 order.
Supreme Court Ruling — Overview and Disposition
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the CA decision promulgated on March 17, 2003.
- Costs of suit were imposed on the petitioner.
- The Court directed the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the petitioner for apparent (a) deliberate disregard of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence regarding issuance and implementation of writs of possession under Act No. 3135, as amended; and (b) possible violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
I. Timeliness — Petition for Certiorari in the CA Was Filed Beyond Reglementary Period
- The Supreme Court observed the petition in the CA (filed March 2002) attacked orders stemming from Octo