View full case

SPS. ERNESTO v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

FACTS:

The petitioner spouses obtained a loan from the respondent bank and executed a real estate mortgage as security. When they failed to pay the loan, the respondent filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage, resulting in the sale of the mortgaged property at a public auction. The respondent then filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, which was initially granted by the trial court. However, the petitioners filed a petition to set aside the auction sale and the writ of possession, which led to the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. After a long delay, the trial court dismissed the respondent's petition for failure to prosecute. Six years later, the respondent filed a motion to clarify the order and to request the issuance of an alias writ of possession, which was initially denied. However, the trial court later granted the respondent's motion for reconsideration and ordered the issuance of the alias writ of possession.

The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a writ of possession issued on February 16, 1984, which was later dismissed on December 16, 1986, due to the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case. The petitioner, Ernesto Topacio, caused delays in the case by going abroad for a long period. The respondent, as the winning bidder, then filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the revival of the writ of possession, which was granted by the trial court, leading to the issuance of an alias writ of execution. The petitioner filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing that the trial court had acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied the petition and affirmed the trial court's orders, finding that the December 16, 1986 dismissal order was not final with respect to the respondent. The CA also held that an independent action for the revival of the writ of possession was not necessary. The petitioner then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, raising two main arguments: that the December 16, 1986 dismissal order constituted an adjudication on the merits and that the writ of possession could not be enforced after more than five years from its issuance.

In September 1992, the respondent judge issued an order declaring the land in question as a timberland area. However, the petitioners only filed a motion for reconsideration in May 1993, which the respondents argue is beyond the prescribed period. As a result, the respondents contend that any subsequent orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) are barred by res judicata.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the December 16, 1986 Order dismissing the respondent's petition for issuance of a writ of possession constitutes an adjudication on the merits.

  2. Whether the writ of possession issued on February 16, 1984, may still be enforced by mere motion after the lapse of more than five years from its issuance.

RULING:

  1. Adjudication on the Merits

    • The December 16, 1986 Dismissal Order did not constitute an adjudication on the merits as it was based on technical grounds and was never served properly to the respondent. Consequently, it never attained finality.

  2. Enforcement of Writ of Possession

    • Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which limits enforcement of judgments by motion to five years, does not apply to special proceedings like the ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Act No. 3135. Therefore, the writ of possession may still be enforced by mere motion despite the time lapse.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Res Judicata Final judgments on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction are conclusive in later suits involving the same parties and issues. However, a dismissal on technical grounds that was not properly served does not attain finality and thus does not bar subsequent actions.

  • Execution by Motion or Independent Action Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court only applies to civil actions and not to special proceedings. For a writ of possession in the context of extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, the trial court’s duty to issue such a writ is ministerial, and the writ can be enforced immediately upon proper motion and bond approval, regardless of the five-year period limitation for civil actions.