Ancheta v. Metropolitan Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) initiated proceedings to obtain a writ of possession for seven parcels of land after the mortgagor, Maglalang Construction and Development Corporation, defaulted on loans totaling P86,915,385.31. Metrobank foreclosed the real estate mortgage, purchased the property at auction, and consolidated ownership after the mortgagors failed to redeem the property. When the mortgagors refused to vacate, Metrobank filed a petition for a writ of possession. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Metrobank's petition for a writ of possession. Subsequently, Concepcion R. Ancheta, a co-owner and mortgagor, sought to intervene, arguing that a prior RTC decision nullifying the mortgage and foreclosure was pending appeal. Metrobank opposed the intervention, asserting that a writ of possession is an ex parte proceeding and that intervention is not permitted after judgment. The RTC denied Ancheta's motion for intervention and her subsequent motion for reconsideration. Ancheta then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed her petition, affirming the RTC's decision and finding no grave abuse of discretion. The CA also ruled that the certificate of non-forum shopping was valid and that the writ of possession was a proper incident of ownership consolidation. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari challenges the CA's decision. Petitioner Ancheta contends that the petition for a writ of possession was defective due to an invalid certificate of non-forum shopping, as the authorizing board resolution was passed after the petition was filed. She further argues that the RTC should not have issued the writ of possession given the pending appeal of the nullification of the mortgage and foreclosure, asserting that the RTC interfered with another branch's decision. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, holding that a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading requiring a certificate of non-forum shopping and that intervention is generally not allowed in such ex parte proceedings. The Court also clarified that the issuance of a writ of possession is a mere incident of ownership and does not interfere with the resolution of the underlying validity of the mortgage or foreclosure.
Issue(s)
Whether a certification against forum shopping is required in a petition for a writ of possession under Act No. 3135. Whether intervention is permissible in an ex parte proceeding for a writ of possession under Act No. 3135. Whether the pendency of a separate case questioning the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure bars the issuance of a writ of possession. Whether the RTC's issuance of a writ of possession interfered with the judgment of another RTC branch.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping: The Court held that a certification against forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings. A petition for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not an initiatory pleading but is considered a mere incident in the registration proceeding or an ex parte motion. Therefore, the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping does not apply to such petitions. The Court cited Spouses Arquiza v. Court of Appeals to support the conclusion that the petition for a writ of possession, being an incident, dispels the requirement of a forum shopping certification. On the permissibility of intervention: The Court reiterated that proceedings for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 are ex parte in nature, meaning they are brought for the benefit of one party without notice to or consent of any adversely interested person. Intervention, as defined, contemplates an "action" which is an ordinary suit where one party prosecutes another. Since a writ of possession proceeding is summary and ex parte, it does not envision a trial where evidence is introduced by parties, and thus, intervention is generally not allowed. The Court cited GSIS v. Court of Appeals to emphasize the ex parte nature of these proceedings and the inappropriateness of intervention. On the effect of a pending annulment case: The Court clarified that any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession. The purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession regardless of a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or foreclosure. The issuance of the writ is a mere incident to the transfer of title and does not delve into the merits of the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure. The Court relied on its ruling in Ong v. Court of Appeals, stating that the purchaser is entitled to possession without prejudice to the eventual outcome of the annulment case. On the doctrine of judicial non-interference: The Court found that the RTC did not interfere with the judgment of another branch. The doctrine of judicial stability applies to prevent branches of the same court from interfering with each other's judgments. However, in this case, the RTC, Branch 4, in granting the writ of possession, did not modify or vacate the decision of Branch 32 in Civil Case No. 98-88370. The RTC merely acted on the issue of possession, which is a consequence of the transfer of title, and did not resolve the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure, which were the subjects of the case before Branch 32 and its subsequent appeal. Therefore, the RTC's action was collateral to, and did not encroach upon, the jurisdiction of the other branch.
Main Doctrine
A petition for a writ of possession under Act No. 3135 is not an initiatory pleading, thus, a certification against forum shopping is not required. Furthermore, intervention is generally not allowed in such ex parte proceedings, and the pendency of a separate case questioning the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure does not bar the issuance of a writ of possession.