Barrameda v. Gontang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leoncio Barrameda was the registered owner of three parcels of land, mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for P22,000. Upon failure to pay, DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, becoming the highest bidder at the auction sale on April 23, 1962. Barrameda failed to redeem the land, leading DBP to consolidate ownership and obtain a new title (TCT 5003). DBP subsequently sold the property to Carmen Gontang and Rodolfo General. Procedural History: Gontang and General requested DBP to deliver possession. DBP filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession (Special Proceeding 1917) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur, alleging ownership, expiration of redemption period, and consolidation of ownership. A writ of possession was issued but not served due to non-payment of sheriff's fees. An alias writ was subsequently issued and served, placing DBP (represented by Gontang and General) in possession and ejecting occupants, including Barrameda. Despite this, Barrameda, through armed men, repeatedly attempted to re-enter the land and claim the landowner's share of the harvest. Consequently, Gontang and General filed a petition for preliminary injunction (Civil Case 5700) in the CFI of Camarines Sur to enjoin Barrameda and his men from disturbing their possession. The CFI issued the preliminary injunction after due hearing, and a motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Leoncio Barrameda filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, arguing that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction, as it was predicated upon a writ of possession and an alias writ to which he was allegedly not made a party.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction. Whether the issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding requires an independent action when the mortgagor remains in possession.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The respondent Judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction. The court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser at public auction of a mortgaged property without the necessity of an independent action when the mortgagor continues in possession thereof after confirmation of the sale by final decree. An injunction is a proper remedy to protect the owner in possession from repeated acts of intrusion by a stranger.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge and the issuance of the writ of possession: The petitioner's contention that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction is without merit. When the DBP filed the ex parte petition for a writ of possession, it was the admitted owner of the property by virtue of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. As the purchaser, it was entitled to possession upon confirmation of the sale, as ownership is transferred to the purchaser. In foreclosure suits, where no third party intervenes and the debtor remains in possession, a writ of possession is a necessary remedy to end the litigation, as the confirmation of the sale divests parties of their rights and vests them in the purchaser. It is the duty of the court to issue such a writ to place the purchaser in possession of the property. The Court held that the court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser at public auction of the property mortgaged without the necessity of an independent action when the mortgagor continues in the possession thereof after confirmation of the sale by final decree, citing Rivera vs. Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, et al.. Furthermore, the ex parte petition for a writ of possession did include the petitioner as a party, referring to him as being in possession of the land, and the alias writ explicitly commanded the sheriff to eject all adverse occupants, including Leoncio Barrameda. The sheriff's return confirmed service of the alias writ on the petitioner, thus placing DBP in complete possession. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that he was not made a party is untenable. On the issuance of the preliminary injunction: The issuance of the preliminary injunction was perfectly proper. The petition for injunction filed by Gontang and General alleged that despite their possession, the petitioner repeatedly attempted to intrude into the premises, forcibly took the owner's share of the harvest with armed men, and threatened to re-enter for future harvests, which acts would cause grave and irreparable damage. The trial court found these allegations well-founded. The Court recognized that an injunction is a legitimate remedy to protect the owner in possession from illegitimate acts of repeated intrusion by a stranger, especially when the intermittent nature of such acts and the probability of repetition make the legal remedy by an independent action to try title inadequate, justifying the granting of the equitable remedy. This principle was established in Rustia vs. Franco, where the Court cited Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser at public auction of a mortgaged property without the necessity of an independent action when the mortgagor continues in possession thereof after confirmation of the sale by final decree. Furthermore, an injunction is a legitimate remedy to protect the owner in possession from repeated acts of intrusion by a stranger.