Laureano v. Bormaheco, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Reynaldo and Florencia Laureano obtained credit accommodations from Philippine National Cooperative Bank (PNCB), securing the loans with a real estate mortgage on two lots in Makati City. The Laureano spouses defaulted on their payments, leading PNCB to initiate extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Following a public auction on February 20, 1984, PNCB emerged as the highest bidder and was issued a Certificate of Sale. After the Laureano spouses failed to exercise their right of redemption within the statutory period, ownership of the lots was consolidated in PNCB's name, and new titles were issued. Subsequently, PNCB sold these lots to Bormaheco, Inc., which then obtained new titles in its name. 2. Procedural History: Bormaheco, Inc. filed an ex parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. Despite the ex parte nature of the petition, the RTC ordered service upon the Laureano spouses. Reynaldo Laureano moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction, which the RTC denied. This denial was challenged via certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, LIDECO Corporation sought to intervene, claiming ownership of buildings on the lots, but its intervention was struck off due to lack of legal personality. Laureano Investment and Development Corporation's attempt to substitute LIDECO was also denied by the RTC, leading to another certiorari petition to the CA and subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. The RTC eventually granted Bormaheco's petition for a writ of possession. Laureano again moved to dismiss, raising Bormaheco's alleged lack of legal capacity, which was denied by the RTC. The RTC then issued an order for execution of the writ of possession, followed by a denial of Laureano's motion for reconsideration. This led to a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed, and a subsequent denial of a motion for reconsideration. This final dismissal by the Court of Appeals is the subject of the current petition. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed Reynaldo Laureano's Petition for Certiorari. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's orders, contending that the issuance of the writ of possession violated due process because his motion to dismiss was still pending and that he was denied his right to a hearing. The petitioner essentially seeks to overturn the orders granting Bormaheco, Inc. possession of the foreclosed properties, asserting procedural irregularities and violations of his rights throughout the prolonged legal proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's Order of September 25, 1997, and Order of November 4, 1997, and in failing to hold that the issuance of the Order of September 25, 1997, which granted Bormaheco, Inc.'s Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Possession, violated due process when petitioner's "Urgent Motion To Dismiss Petition and To Strike Pleadings Filed by Bormaheco, Inc." was still pending and unresolved. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court denied petitioner his right to a hearing.
Ruling
The petition is denied for utter lack of merit, and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The counsel for the petitioner, Atty. Eduardo R. Robles, is admonished to be more circumspect in his availment of legal processes, and any future indiscretion shall be dealt with more severely. Treble costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process and the pending motion to dismiss: The Court held that the petitioner was afforded more than what was due. Despite the petition being ex parte, he was given notice and allowed to oppose, even though he had already lost all interest in the properties due to failure to redeem. The Court emphasized that the nature of an ex parte petition for a writ of possession requires no notice to interested parties, as it is a ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ upon filing of the motion and required bond by the purchaser. The petitioner's actions, including filing multiple motions and appeals, caused undue delay, transforming a simple ex parte petition into a protracted litigation spanning over twelve years. The Court found no violation of due process, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard and to question the proceedings, but his arguments lacked merit. On the issue of denial of the right to a hearing: The Court found no denial of the right to a hearing. The petitioner was given notice of the ex parte petition, allowed to file an opposition, and his motions were eventually resolved by the RTC. The RTC's Order of September 25, 1997, explicitly addressed and resolved the motions filed by the petitioner, including the grounds raised in his "Urgent Motion to Dismiss Petition and to Strike Pleadings Filed by Bormaheco." The Court noted that the petitioner had already challenged the denial of his initial motion to dismiss up to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower courts' rulings. Therefore, the petitioner had been afforded multiple opportunities to be heard throughout the protracted proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to a writ of possession as a ministerial duty of the court, and the subsequent change in corporate name of the purchaser does not affect its legal personality or rights.