View full case

SPS. CARMELITO v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over a 4,044-square meter lot located in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City. The registered owners, the Reyes siblings and their father, obtained a loan secured by a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over the lot, which they failed to pay resulting in a foreclosure sale. The mortgagee filed a petition for a writ of possession, which was granted subject to the posting of a bond. The Reyes siblings filed a motion to recall the issuance of the writ, claiming that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were null and void. The mortgagee opposed the motion and sought the issuance of the writ without the bond. The RTC denied the motion to recall and granted the mortgagee's request. Meanwhile, the mortgagee consolidated the title over the property in her name and obtained a new certificate of title. The respondents, who claimed to have been residing on the lot since the 1960s through lease contracts with the Reyes siblings, filed a complaint seeking the nullity of documents and title, reconveyance, and damages. They requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioners from further acts of dispossession and the cancellation of the new certificate of title. The RTC denied the prayer for a TRO but allowed the filing of an amended complaint. During this time, the RTC granted a motion for a special order of demolition, which ordered the respondents and others deriving rights from them to vacate the premises within 60 days. The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that they were not notified or impleaded in the proceedings and foreclosure sale, and therefore not bound by the order of demolition. The CA initially dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, but later granted a TRO in favor of the respondents. The CA required the petitioners to comment on the petition, and before the hearing took place, the CA issued a resolution granting the respondents' ancillary prayer for injunctive relief. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The respondents posted the required injunction bond, and the CA issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The petitioners filed a motion for the inhibition of the CA Sixth Division, which was granted. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.

This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land, where the petitioners claim ownership of the land by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. They filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership against the respondents who are occupying portions of the land. During the pendency of the case, a Writ of Possession in favor of the petitioners was issued, and an Order of Demolition was subsequently issued when the respondents failed to comply with the Notice to Vacate. The respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, challenging the propriety of the Writ of Possession and the Order of Demolition. They also sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The petitioners argued that the petition filed by the respondents was premature and filed out of time. They also asserted that the pendency of another case should not bar the implementation of the Writ of Possession in the present case. The respondents denied misleading the CA and stated that they filed a motion to withdraw their prayer for a temporary restraining order and argued that the issue of the propriety and timeliness of their legal remedy should still be determined by the CA. They also argued that the issue of who has a better right over the property is irrelevant and should be resolved in another case pending before another branch of the RTC.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion in granting respondents' ancillary prayer for preliminary injunction.

  2. Whether a Petition for Certiorari is the proper remedy to review the intrinsic correctness of the public respondent's ruling.

  3. Whether the respondents have shown that they are in actual possession of the disputed portions of the property.

  4. Whether the respondents' possession raises a disputable presumption that they are the owners of the property.

  5. Whether the unrecorded sale of the property is preferred over the recorded mortgage.

  6. The issue in this case is whether the decision of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed and if the case should be remanded for immediate resolution.

RULING:

  1. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that there was no indication that the CA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The grant of the writ was justified as the respondents proved the requisites for its issuance, namely: (1) clear and unmistakable right to be protected, (2) material and substantial invasion of the right, (3) urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury, and (4) absence of any other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy to prevent such injury.

  2. A Petition for Certiorari is not the proper remedy to review the intrinsic correctness of the public respondent's ruling. The Court emphasized that as long as a court or quasi-judicial body acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than errors of judgment which are not reviewable in a special civil action of certiorari. The scope of certiorari is limited to the determination of whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  3. Yes, the respondents have shown that they are in actual possession of the disputed portions of the property, based on documentary evidence and the Sheriff's Partial Report.

  4. Yes, the respondents' possession raises a disputable presumption that they are the owners of the property under Article 433 of the Civil Code.

  5. Yes, the unrecorded sale of the property is preferred over the recorded mortgage, as the original owner no longer had ownership and free disposal of the property to be able to mortgage it again.

  6. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals and remands the case for immediate resolution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A Writ of Preliminary Injunction may be issued at any stage of an action prior to judgment or final order to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the parties, provided the requisites for its issuance are met.

  • The buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property if it is not redeemed within one year from the registration of the sale and title is consolidated in their name. However, the duty of the court to issue a Writ of Possession ceases to be ministerial when a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.

  • Possession of a property raises a disputable presumption of ownership under Article 433 of the Civil Code.

  • Between an unrecorded sale of a property and a recorded mortgage, the former is preferred over the latter if the original owner had already disposed of the ownership of the property.

  • Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is within the discretion of the trial court, and its evaluation and assessment of evidence in such matters are generally not interfered with by appellate courts.

There are no specific legal principles or doctrines mentioned in this text.