Capital Credit Dimension Inc. v. Chua : 157213 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno
: Second Division : Decision
[G.R. NO. 157213. April 28, 2004]
CAPITAL CREDIT DIMENSION, INC.,
VITA CHUA, ALFREDO VITA, JR., NELSON P. VITA, MANUEL P. VITA,1 and LORNA P. VITA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
Assailed in this Petition for Review is the Decision dated
February 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 717032 ordering the Presiding Judge and
Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, and all persons
acting under them, to desist from enforcing the Order dated May 31, 2002 and
other allied processes against herein Respondents.
Respondents Allan Vita Chua, Alfredo Vita, Jr., Nelson P. Vita,
Manuel P. Vita, and Loran P. Vita appear to be the registered co-owners of the
residential property located at No. 25 Yale St., Cubao, Quezon City under TCT
No. 91086 (348965). Through a purported Deed of Sale dated October 25, 1993
executed by them in favor of Jesus Cunanan, married to Melodina Cunanan, TCT
No. 91086 (348965) was cancelled and TCT No. 98208 issued in the name of Jesus
On May 13, 1998, Jesus Cunanan mortgaged the property to
petitioner Capital Credit Dimension, Inc. (CCDI) for a loan of P2,350,000.00.
When he failed to pay the loan, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed. It
was sold at public auction to CCDI as the highest bidder. The one-year period
of redemption expired and petitioner CCDI consolidated its ownership. TCT No.
N-211793 was issued in its name. On April 13, 2000, petitioner CCDI filed a petition
for the issuance of a writ of possession over the subject property before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City docketed as LRC Case No. Q-12688 (possessory petition). The petition was
raffled to Branch 97.
Respondent Allan Vita Chua filed a motion to intervene in the
proceeding. He alleged that the Deed of Sale executed in favor of Jesus Cunanan
was void as his father, Juanito Chua, stole the owners copy of TCT No. 91086
(348965) from his residence at No. 25 Yale St., Cubao, Quezon City, and forged
his signature and those of his co-owners as sellers. He further alleged that
they have filed a case for annulment of deed of sale, transfer certificates of
title and public auction sale (annulment case) before Branch 100 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Jesus and Melodina Cunanan, Juanito
Chua, CCDI, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-40354. He prayed that
the possessory petition be consolidated with the annulment case. His motion was
denied. He challenged the denial in the Court of Appeals but again lost the
case.3 We, in turn, denied the petition to review the Court of Appeals decision on
technical grounds in our Resolution dated April 3, 2002 in G. R. No. 151399.4 cralawred
It likewise appears that the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 100,
decided the annulment case in favor of the respondents Allan Chua and the Vitas
in a Decision dated January 18, 2002, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants (Juanito Chua, Spouses Jesus and
Melodina Cunanan and CCDI),
ordering the following:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1.Declaring the Deed of Sale dated
October 23, 1993 as null and void;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.Ordering the Registry (sic) of Deeds for Quezon City to effect
the cancellation of TCT No. 211793 in the name of defendant CCDI and the
restitution of TCT No. RT-91086 (348965) in the name of herein plaintiffs;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3.Payment by the aforesaid defendants
of attorneys fees in the amount of P30,000.00; andcralawlibrary
4.The costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.5 cralawred
Petitioner CCDI appealed the decision. Its appeal, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 74522, is still pending before the Court of Appeals.
The case became more entangled when on May 31, 2002, the
possessory petition was resolved by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97, in favor
of petitioner CCDI, as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
x x xx
x x x
WHEREFORE, let a writ of possession issue in favor of petitioner
Capital Credit Dimension, Inc. over the property covered by Transfer
[Certificate] of Title No. N-211793 of the Registry (sic) of Deeds of Quezon City.
A Writ of Possession dated August 5, 2002
was thereafter issued in favor of petitioner CCDI directing the Branch Sheriff
to place petitioner in possession of the subject property and to eject
therefrom Sps. Jesus Cunanan and all persons presently staying therein and
claiming rights under them. The Sheriff, in turn, issued a Notice to Vacate
directing the occupants of No. 25 Yale St., Cubao, Quezon City, to vacate the
premises and gave them until September 12, 2002 within which to do so.
Faced with eviction, respondents Allan Vita Chua and the Vitas
filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals to enjoin the
implementation of the Order dated May 31, 2002. The Court of Appeals granted
the petition in its now assailed Decision dated February 13, 2003, the
dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. It is
ORDERED of the respondents Presiding Judge and Sheriff and all those acting for
or through them, that they cease and desist from enforcing against the
petitioners the assailed Order dated May 31, 2002 and the other processes
SO ORDERED.6 cralawred
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner CCDI contends that the Court of Appeals erred in
prohibiting the implementation of the writ of possession against respondents
considering that its issuance is ministerial and cannot be affected by a
pending suit to annul the mortgage or its foreclosure.
Respondents, on the other hand, contend that they should not be
adversely affected by the writ of possession as they were not parties to the
possessory petition and further considering that the writ was directed against
the Cunanans and all persons presently
staying therein and claiming rights under them. They contend that they are
not parties claiming rights under the Cunanans and are, on the contrary,
asserting a totally adverse right against them.
We deny the petition.
In Philippine National Bank v. Court of
Appeals 7 we have ruled that an ex-parte writ
of possession issued pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended, cannot be enforced
against a third person who is in actual possession of the foreclosed property
and who is not in privity with the debtor/mortgagor. To do so would be to
sanction his summary ejectment in violation of the basic tenets of due process.8 This is because properties brought
within the ambit of Act No. 3135, unlike those subject to judicial foreclosure,
are foreclosed by the mere filing of a petition with the office of the sheriff
of the province where the sale is to be made.9 A
third person in possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed property, who
claims a right superior to that of the original mortgagor, is thus given no
opportunity to be heard in his claim. Considering the lack of opportunity, such
third person may therefore not be dispossessed on the strength of a mere ex-parte possessory writ10 issued in foreclosure proceedings to which he was not a party.
The cases11 cited by petitioner to support his
claim that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the mortgagee of a
foreclosed property after the period of redemption has expired is ministerial
upon the trial court do not apply since the parties who filed the cases
questioning the mortgage and its foreclosure were the debtors/mortgagors
themselves, not third parties, as in the instant case.
We shall refrain from resolving the issue of whether petitioner
is a buyer in good faith of the subject property. This is an issue raised in
the annulment case now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. The case at
bar deals only with the legality of the issuance of the writ of possession
against the Respondents.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
petition is DENIED. The
questioned Decision dated February 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 71703 is AFFIRMED. No
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and TINGA, JJ., concur.
This respondent was omitted in the title of the petition filed by the
petitioner which omission was carried on in the titles of the subsequent
pleadings filed in this case. However, since he is included as a party in the
decision of the Court of Appeals under review and no reason appears why he
should now be excluded, his name is accordingly included in our enumeration of
the respondents. Besides, he was specifically named a respondent in the
Entitled Allan Vita Chua, Alfredo Vita, Jr., Nelson P. Vita, Manuel P. Vita, and Loran P. Vita v. Hon. Lucas P. Bersamin, Presiding Pairing Judge of Branch
97, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the Sheriff George D. Mabborang of Br.
97, Regional Trial Court of Q.C. and Capital Credit Dimension, Incorporated.
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64524 entitled Allan Vita Chua v
Oscar L. Leviste, Presiding Judge, Branch 97, Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City and Capital Credit Dimension, Inc.
Entitled Allan Vita Chua, et al
Court of Appeals, et al
374 SCRA 22 (2002); see also
Intermediate Appellate Court, 162 SCRA 358 (1988) and Philippine National Bank v
Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 70 (1997).
Sec. 4, Act. No. 3135, as amended.
Back to Home | Back to Main