Spouses Pahimutang v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Gerardo and Celestina Pahimutang obtained loans from Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, secured by mortgages on their house and lot. After assigning a second mortgage to Banco Filipino, the total principal debt amounted to P125,700.00, exclusive of interest. The spouses signed promissory notes and made payments until November 1981, after which they defaulted. The outstanding balance, including accrued interest, was P108,566.68. Banco Filipino initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property, with itself as the highest bidder at P124,850.00. Following the expiration of the redemption period, ownership of the property was transferred to Banco Filipino. Procedural History: Banco Filipino filed a petition for a Writ of Possession, which was initially granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 141, contingent on a P200,000.00 bond. The spouses Pahimutang filed an action to annul the foreclosure, which was dismissed by the RTC. Subsequently, the RTC ordered the issuance of the Writ of Possession. The spouses then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the writ. Banco Filipino appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 68878), which reversed the CA's decision and upheld the RTC's Writ of Possession. This Supreme Court decision became final and executory on February 13, 1992. Thereafter, Banco Filipino filed for a second alias writ of possession, which was granted by the RTC on February 28, 1994. The spouses again petitioned the CA for annulment of this second alias writ, arguing the illegality of the foreclosure and the applicability of RA 6552. The Petition: The present petition, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 25, 1995, which affirmed the RTC's Order issuing a second alias writ of execution. Petitioners allege that public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction and committed extrinsic fraud. Specifically, they claim Banco Filipino deliberately failed to notify them of the foreclosure sale, that the RTC judge rushed the issuance of the writ of possession, and that the judge failed to strictly adhere to procedures by not requiring the adverse party to comment. Petitioners also assert a violation of Section 18, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding the notice of sale and its publication. The Supreme Court, while noting the petition was filed under the wrong rule, considered the merits and found no grave abuse of discretion, affirming the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing the second alias writ of possession. Whether extrinsic fraud was committed by the respondents in depriving the petitioners of a full opportunity to present their case. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the protection of RA 6552 (Realty Installment Buyers’ Protection Act). Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure sale was validly conducted, particularly concerning the notice requirements.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld the order of the Regional Trial Court issuing the second alias writ of possession in favor of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondents. The petitioners' claim that Banco Filipino deliberately failed to notify them of the foreclosure sale was belied by the existence of a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, a Certificate of Posting, and an Affidavit of Publication. Furthermore, the accusation that the RTC judge rushed the issuance of the writ and failed to require the adverse party to comment was unsubstantiated. Crucially, the Supreme Court had already upheld the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of Banco Filipino in G.R. No. 68878, a decision that became final and executory on February 13, 1992. This prior ruling established the validity of the writ and barred its re-examination. On the alleged extrinsic fraud: The Court found no extrinsic fraud was committed. The Supreme Court had already upheld the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of Banco Filipino in G.R. No. 68878, a decision that became final and executory on February 13, 1992. This prior ruling established the validity of the writ and barred its re-examination. The principle of res judicata had set in, preventing the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court from re-examining the same issues anew. On the applicability of RA 6552: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that RA 6552 was not applicable to the petitioners' situation. The facts indicated that the petitioners entered into a mortgage contract and promissory notes to secure a loan, which were standard practices for the sale of houses and lots. RA 6552, the Realty Installment Buyers’ Protection Act, specifically protects buyers of real estate on installment payments, which does not appear to be the nature of the transaction in this case, especially after the default and subsequent foreclosure. On the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure and notice requirements: The Court found the petitioners' allegations regarding the lack of notice to be without merit. Evidence presented, including the Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, Certificate of Posting, and Affidavit of Publication from a newspaper of general circulation, demonstrated compliance with the required publication of the foreclosure sale. The petitioners' assertion that Section 18, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court was violated was not substantiated by the evidence on record.
Main Doctrine
The validity of a writ of possession, once upheld with finality by the Supreme Court, cannot be re-litigated through subsequent petitions for certiorari, as the principle of res judicata applies.