ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 176518 : March 2, 2010 THE PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PTA) OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., ROWENA LAYUG, MALOU MALVAR, MARILOU BARAQUIO, GARY SINLAO, LUZVIMINDA OCAMPO,MARIFE FERNANDEZ, FERNANDO VICTORIO, ERNESTO AGANON and RIZALINO MANGLICMOT, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. THE METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST CO., Respondent. D E C I S I O N DEL CASTILLO, J.: As a general rule, the issuance of a writ of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the period of redemption is ministerial. As an exception, it ceases to be ministerial if there is a third party holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In this case, we find that petitioners right over the foreclosed property is not adverse to that of the judgment debtor or mortgagor. As such, they cannot seek the quashal or prevent the implementation of the writ of possession.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Factual Antecedents The facts of this case as summarized by the Court of Appeals (CA) in its assailed Decision Sometime in 2001, the spouses Denivin Ilagan and Josefina Ilagan (spouses Ilagan) applied for and were granted a loan by the [Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.] in the amount of x x x ( Upon default, an extrajudicial foreclosure was conducted with [Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.] being the highest bidder x x x and for which a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary During the period of redemption, the respondent Bank filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession docketed as LRC Case No. 6438 by posting x x x the required bond which was subsequently approved. x x x On June 30, 2005], the St. Mathew Christian Academy of Tarlac, Inc. filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Restraining Order docketed as Special Civil Action No. 9793 against the respondent Bank and the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On August 16, 2005, the x x x Judge issued a Joint Decision in LRC Case No. 6438 and Special Civil Action No. 9793, the contents of which are x x x as follows: JOINT DECISION Metropolitan Bank x x x is now entitled to a writ of possession, it being mandatory even during the period of redemption.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The school, St. Mathew Christian [Academy] filed the petition for injunction on the ground that it cannot be ejected being a third party.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary x x x St. Mathew Christian Academy is practically owned by the mortgagors, spouses Denivin and Josefina Ilagan. Firstly, the lease to St. Mathew by the Ilagans, as lessor, was for a period of one year from the execution of the lease contract in 1998. Therefore, the lease should have expired in 1999. However, since the lease continued after 1999, the lease is now with a definite period, or monthly, since the payment of lease rental is monthly. (Articles 1670 and 1687, Civil Code). Therefore, the lease expires at the end of each month.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Secondly, the lease was not registered and annotated at the back of the title, and therefore, not binding on third persons. (Article 1648, Civil Code) Thirdly, the spouses are the owners or practically the owners of St. Mathew. Even if it has a separate personality, nevertheless, "piercing the veil of corporate entity" is resorted to for the spouses should not be allowed to commit fraud under the separate entity/personality of St. Mathew.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In connection with the allegation of the spouses Ilagans that the mortgage contract contains provision which is pactum commisorium, the Court does not agree. What is prohibited is the automatic appropriation without the public sale of the mortgaged properties.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The interest charges may be exorbitant, but it does not of itself cause the nullity of the entire contract of mortgage.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary There is also no violation on the proscription on forum shopping. What is important is that, there is really no other case between the parties involving the same subject matter.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In fine, St. Mathew is not really a third person. It is bound by the writ of possession issued by this Court.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary WHEREFORE, the writ of possession issued by this Court dated April 22, 2005 is hereby affirmed, Civil Case No. 9793 is dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the said Joint Decision, herein petitioners Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) of St. Mathew Christian Academy (SMCA) and Gregorio Inalvez, Jr., Rowena Layug, Malou Malvar, Marilou Baraquio, Gary Sinlao, Luzviminda Ocampo, Marife Fernandez, Fernando Victorio, Ernesto Aganon, and Rizalino Manglicmot who are teachers and students of SMCA, filed a Motion for Leave to file Petition in Intervention Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioners assailed the trial courts Order through a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the CA. However, said petition was dismissed by the CA for lack of merit in its assailed Decision dated November 29, 2006. It held thus: Considering that in this case the writ of possession had already been issued x x x petitioners remedy was to file x x x a petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of possession cancelled. Instead, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Moreover, no motion for reconsideration of the said Order directing the issuance of a writ of possession was filed neither was there any motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order of 7 December 2005 prior to the institution of the instant Petition for Certiorari to afford the respondent Court an opportunity to correct its alleged error. The rule is that certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent tribunal to allow it to correct its imputed error. While there are exceptions to the rule, none has been invoked by petitioners.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the motion was denied in a Resolution dated January 29, 2007.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Hence, petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. Issues
Our Ruling The petition is bereft of merit.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners are not "Third Parties" against whom the writ of possession cannot be issued and implemented.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As a rule, it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the period of redemption. However, this rule is not without exception. In Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Ordinarily, a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. Thus, whenever the purchaser prays for a writ of possession, the trial court has to issue it as a matter of course. However, the obligation of the trial court to issue a writ of possession ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. Where such third party exists, the trial court should conduct a hearing to determine the nature of his adverse possession. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, we find that petitioners cannot be considered as third parties because they are not claiming a right adverse to the judgment debtor. Petitioner-teachers and students did not claim ownership of the properties, but merely averred actual "physical possession of the subject school premises". At this point, it is relevant to note that in the Joint Decision dated August 16, 2005, the trial court found that SMCA was not a third party and was therefore bound by the said writ of possession. MBTC thus correctly argued that petitioners did not have superior rights to that of SMCA over the subject property because their supposed possession of the same emanated only from the latter. Since petitioners possession of the subject school premises stemmed from their employment or enrollment contracts with the school, as the case may be, necessarily, their right to possess the subject school premises cannot be adverse to that of the school and of its owners. As such, the petitioners cannot be deemed "third parties" as contemplated in Act No. 3135, as amended.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The lack of authority to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession was an insignificant lapse.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners further claim that the lack of authority to sign the certificate on non-forum shopping attached to the Petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Possession rendered the same worthless and should be deemed as non-existent. Petitioners contention lacks basis. In Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, x x x it bears stressing that a certification on non-forum shopping is required only in a complaint or a petition which is an initiatory pleading. In this case, the subject petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by private respondent is not an initiatory pleading. Although private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition, it is more properly a motion. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but its purpose. The purpose of a motion is not to initiate litigation, but to bring up a matter arising in the progress of the case where the motion is filed. It is not necessary to initiate an original action in order for the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property to acquire possession. Hence, it is immaterial that the certification on non-forum shopping in the MBTCs petition was signed by its branch head. Such inconsequential oversight did not render the said petition defective in form.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The trial courts Order did not violate the petitioner-students right to quality education and academic freedom.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary We disagree with petitioners assertion that the students right to quality education and academic freedom was violated. The constitutional mandate to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels There is likewise no violation of the so-called academic freedom. Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the Constitution mandates "that academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." Academic freedom did not go beyond the concept of freedom of intellectual inquiry, I]t is to be noted that the reference is to the 'institutions of higher learning' as the recipients of this boon. It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students. This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion. That would be to frustrate its purpose, nullify its intent. x x x It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail the 'four essential freedoms' of a university - to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In this case, except for their bare allegation that "if the school will be ejected because of the writ of possession, the students will necessarily be ejected also" The petitioners were accorded due process.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The petitioners argue that the court below did not conduct trial for the presentation of evidence to support its conclusion that the intervention would have no bearing on the issuance and implementation of the writ of possession, Petitioners contention is without merit. It is settled that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court. This ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a "judicial process" as contemplated in Article 433 In Idolor v. Court of Appeals, Here in the present case, we similarly reject petitioners contention that the trial court should have conducted a trial prior to issuing the Order denying their motion to intervene. The proper remedy for the petitioners is a separate, distinct and independent suit, provided for under Act No. 3135.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners assert that Section 8 of Act No. 3135 specifically refers to "the debtor" as the party who is required to file a petition for the cancellation of the writ of possession in the same proceeding in which possession was requested. Respondent, on the other hand, avers that certiorari is available only when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. We hold that the CA correctly held that the proper remedy is a separate, distinct and independent suit provided for in Section 8 of Act No. 3135 SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested, but not later than thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of possession canceled, specifying the damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the provisions hereof, and the court shall take cognizance of this petition in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in section one hundred and twelve of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six; and if it finds the complaint of the debtor justified, it shall dispose in his favor of all or part of the bond furnished by the person who obtained possession. Either of the parties may appeal from the order of the judge in accordance with section fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six; but the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In De Gracia v. San Jose,, x x x the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the court. And any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale (and the consequent cancellation of the writ) is left to be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in section 8. Such question is not to be raised as a justification for opposing the issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding for this is ex parte. (Emphasis supplied) Since the writ of possession had already been issued in LRC Case No. 6438 per Order dated November 29, 2005, the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition for certiorari, As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration must be filed before resort to the special civil action of certiorari is made.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error that it may have committed. The said rule is not absolute and may be dispensed with in instances where the filing of a motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such as when the motion for reconsideration would raise the same point stated in the motion In the case at bar, the petitioners stated in their Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the CA as follows: 18. Respondent sheriff and his deputies are now set to implement the said writ of possession and are now poised to evict the students and teachers from their classrooms, grounds and school facilities; 19. Petitioners did not anymore file a motion for reconsideration of said order x x x and is proceeding directly to this Honorable Court because the filing of a motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose x x x Besides the relief sought is extremely urgent as the respondent sheriff is set to implement the questioned orders x x x and the circumstances herein clearly indicate the urgency of judicial intervention x x x hence, this petition.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Plainly, the petitioners have the burden to substantiate that their immediate resort to the appellate court is based on any of the exceptions to the general rule. They have to show the urgent and compelling reasons for such recourse. The afore-cited allegations of the petitioners in their petition before the CA did not dispense with the burden of establishing that their case falls under any of the exceptions to the general rule. Unlike the case of Ronquillo v. Court of Appeals We therefore hold that the CA correctly found the necessity for a prior resort to a motion for reconsideration prior to the institution of the Petition for Certiorari. Considerations of equity do not apply in the instant case.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The petitioners claim that the challenged decision of the CA would show that the petition was decided on the basis of pure technicality and that the appellate court did not pass upon the merits of the petition. In San Luis v. San Luis, More than twenty centuries ago, Justinian defined justice "as the constant and perpetual wish to render everyone his due." That wish continues to motivate this Court when it assesses the facts and the law in every case brought to it for decision. Justice is always an essential ingredient of its decisions. Thus when the facts warrant, we interpret the law in a way that will render justice, presuming that it was the intention of the lawmaker, to begin with, that the law be dispensed with justice.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary While equity which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality" is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. In this case, justice demands that we conform to the positive mandate of the law as expressed in Act No. 3135, as amended. Equity has no application as to do so would be tantamount to overruling or supplanting the express provisions of the law.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In our Resolution WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 2006 and its Resolution dated January 29, 2007 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
JOSE P. PEREZ A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|