NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. AUGUSTO BASA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review seeking to nullify the sale of certain properties by virtue of a sheriff's certificate of sale. The National Housing Authority (NHA) loaned spouses Augusto and Luz Basa the amount of P556,827.10 secured by a real estate mortgage. The spouses failed to pay the loan, prompting the NHA to file a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. The properties were sold at public auction, with the NHA emerging as the highest bidder. The sheriff's certificate of sale was registered and annotated on the owner's duplicate copies of the titles. The redemption period expired without the respondents redeeming the properties. NHA executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Possession. An alias writ of possession was sought after the initial writ was not served. Before the RTC could resolve the motion for the alias writ of possession, respondents filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition in Intervention. Respondents argued that the foreclosure sale was invalid due to lack of proper notice and publication. They also claimed that the redemption period had not yet expired. NHA opposed the petition, asserting that the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with the law and that the redemption period had already elapsed. The RTC issued an order granting the issuance of an alias writ of possession and admitting the petition in intervention as a petition to set aside the sale. It also granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the respondents.

The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a motion for reconsideration after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) admitted the intervention of the respondents and issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The NHA argued that the respondents should have challenged the foreclosure sale during the hearing for the original petition for the issuance of a writ of possession and not during the hearing for the alias writ of possession. The NHA also argued that the intervention should be denied because the respondents' right of redemption had already been barred by prescription. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that the admission of intervention was sanctioned by Section 8 of Act No. 3135. The NHA then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and declared the orders of the RTC admitting the intervention and granting the preliminary injunction null and void, except for the portion directing the issuance of an alias writ of possession. The Court of Appeals upheld the grant of the alias writ of possession, stating that it was a necessary consequence after the earlier writ was left unserved. The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that their right of redemption had not yet prescribed. They also argued that the RTC Order granting the writ of possession did not constitute res judicata since it was not a judgment on the merits. The Court of Appeals then reconsidered its earlier decision and declared that the period of redemption had not expired because the certificate of sale had not been registered or annotated in the original copies of the titles due to a fire incident.

The registered owners filed several petitions to intervene in the case, contending that the NHA failed to attach the pleadings filed in the RTC and the Court of Appeals, which was a ground for dismissal. They argued that the certificates of sale were not inscribed in the original titles, and therefore, the redemption period had not yet expired. They insisted that the issue of when the redemption period should be reckoned from is a factual and legal issue that should be resolved in a separate hearing on the merits. The registered owners also contested the issuance of the writ of possession, claiming that it was no longer ministerial as it raised the question of whether their redemption period had expired. They cited the case of Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court to support their argument.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the instant petition should be dismissed for failure to attach pleadings filed in the RTC and the Court of Appeals.

  2. Whether NHA's verification in the petition conforms to the requirements of the Rules of Court.

  3. Whether the annotation of the sheriff's certificate of sale on the owner's duplicate certificate of titles is sufficient registration, considering that the inscription on the original certificates could not be made due to them being burned.

  4. Whether the entry of the certificate of sale in the primary book is equivalent to registration.

  5. Whether the entry of the certificate of sale in the primary book was equivalent to registration such that the TRO and the preliminary injunction issues would not lie anymore.

  6. Whether the doctrine in previous cases, particularly DBP v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, can be applied in this case.

  7. Whether the respondents have lost their opportunity to redeem the properties in question.

  8. Whether there was defect in the publication and notice requirements of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

  9. Whether the annotation of NHA's sheriff's certificate of sale on the duplicate certificates of title was effective registration.

  10. Whether respondents' redemption period had expired.

RULING:

  1. The dismissal of the instant petition is unwarranted even if NHA failed to attach pleadings filed in the RTC and the Court of Appeals. NHA substantially complied with the requirements under Section 4 of Rule 45 by attaching supporting documents that adequately support the petition. Additionally, even if the pleadings and other supporting documents were not attached, the dismissal is unwarranted since the Court has sufficient basis to dispose of the case based on the CA records that were elevated to the Court.

  2. NHA's verification in the petition conforms to the requirements of the Rules of Court. The verification in the petition serves the purpose of ensuring that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct. As long as the verification confirms that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations are true and correct to the affiant's personal knowledge or based on authentic records, it satisfies the requirements of a valid verification.

  3. The Court ruled that the annotation of the sheriff's certificate of sale on the owner's duplicate certificate of titles is sufficient registration even if the inscription on the original certificates could not be made due to them being burned. The Court held that the affiant's verification in the petition was not objectionable and complied with the requirements of Rule 7. It was sufficient that the affiant confirmed that he had read the allegations in the petition, which were true and correct based on his personal knowledge. The addition of the words "to the best" before the phrase "of my personal knowledge" did not violate the requirements. Therefore, the verification was valid.

  4. The Court held that the entry of the certificate of sale in the primary book is equivalent to registration. The Court cited the case of Development Bank of the Philippines v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, wherein it was declared that mere entry in the primary book was considered sufficient registration. As long as the party paid all the fees and complied with all the requirements for primary entry and annotation of the certificate of sale, the Court considered it as sufficient registration. The Court also relied on other cases such as Levin v. Bass and Potenciano v. Dineros, which held that entry in the day book, payment of fees, and presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate of title constituted a complete act of registration.

  5. The TRO and preliminary injunction have become moot and academic due to the valid entry of the certificate of sale in the primary entry book, which is equivalent to registration. An injunction would not lie anymore as the act sought to be enjoined has already been accomplished.

  6. The doctrine in DBP v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, which states that entry alone produces the effect of registration, can be applied in this case since NHA followed the necessary procedure for annotation in the transfer certificates of title. The ruling in DBP can also be applied to similar cases with similar factual and legal issues.

  7. Yes, the respondents have lost their opportunity to redeem the properties in question.

  8. No, there was no defect in the publication and notice requirements of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

  9. The Court ruled that the annotation of the NHA's sheriff's certificate of sale on the duplicate certificates of title was effective registration. It further held that the respondents' redemption period had already expired. Consequently, the mortgagee bank, as the purchaser, was entitled as a matter of right to the issuance of a writ of possession.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Cases should be determined on the merits, and technicalities or procedural imperfections should not be used to frustrate the ends of justice. Rules of procedure are tools designed to expedite the resolution of cases, and a strict and rigid application of rules should be avoided. The Rules of Court should be liberally construed to promote the objective of ensuring the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

  • Verification in a petition is valid as long as the affiant confirms that the allegations in the petition are true and correct based on his personal knowledge, even if the affiant adds the words "to the best" before the phrase "of my personal knowledge".

  • Annotation of a certificate of sale on the owner's duplicate certificate of title is sufficient registration, even if the inscription on the original certificates cannot be made.

  • Entry of a certificate of sale in the primary book, payment of fees, and presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate of title constitute a complete act of registration.

  • Entry alone produces the effect of registration, whether the transaction entered is voluntary or involuntary, as long as the registrant has fulfilled all the necessary requirements for entry and annotation.

  • Once the registrant has complied with all that is required for entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds, there is effective registration.

  • The doctrine of stare decisis urges that courts should apply principles declared in prior decisions that are substantially similar to a pending case.

  • Foreclosure proceedings have the presumption of regularity and the burden of evidence to rebut the same is on the party who questions it.

  • The issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial function and becomes a matter of right after the consolidation of titles in the buyer's name.

  • The court granting the writ of possession cannot be charged with having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

  • The ruling in Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court, which deemed it inequitable to issue a writ of possession in certain circumstances, does not apply to this case.

  • The principles in Cometa v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Fernandez v. Espinoza, which are exemptions to the general rule, do not apply to this case.

  • The annotation of the sheriff's certificate of sale on the duplicate certificates of title constitutes effective registration.

  • The mortgagee bank, as the purchaser at the auction sale, is entitled as a matter of right to the issuance of a writ of possession.