Penson v. Maranan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angelo Dwight Penson and his wife Jovita Lorna Penson are the registered owners of two parcels of land in Parañaque City, where they reside. These properties were mortgaged by Jovita, acting as petitioner's attorney-in-fact, to respondents Spouses Melchor and Virginia Maranan to secure a loan of P1,950,000.00. Petitioner later alleged that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and the Special Power of Attorney were fraudulent. Procedural History: Following Jovita's failure to comply with a Compromise Agreement, which stipulated a reduced payment of P3,000,000.00 in installments, the mortgaged property was extrajudicially foreclosed. Respondents emerged as the highest bidders, and new titles were issued in their names. Respondents then filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, before the writ could be implemented, petitioner filed a separate case for Annulment of Title, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the writ of possession. The RTC granted the injunction, but the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC's orders, ruling that the injunction interfered with a co-equal court and that the writ of possession could not be enjoined. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in concluding that the injunction constituted unlawful interference with a co-equal court and in ruling that the writ of possession could not be enjoined. Petitioner contends that the mortgage was solely executed by Jovita over his exclusive property without his consent, distinguishing it from cases where both spouses jointly executed the mortgage. He further argues that the CA erred in its prima facie finding of the Special Power of Attorney's validity, asserting this was a matter for trial and beyond the CA's scope in a certiorari proceeding. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC constituted unlawful interference with the processes of a co-equal and coordinate court, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the writ of possession cannot be enjoined because the purchaser is entitled to such writ as a matter of right. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the notarized Special Power of Attorney is entitled to the presumption of validity.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of interference with a co-equal court and the enjoinment of a writ of possession: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the issuance of a writ of possession concomitant to an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding is a ministerial duty of the court and issues as a matter of course. Jurisprudence is also clear that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the issuance or enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another court of concurrent jurisdiction. However, this rule has an exception: the obligation of a court to issue an ex-parte writ of possession ceases to be ministerial once it appears that a third party is in possession of the property claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. In this case, the petitioner cannot be considered a "third party in possession of the property who is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor." The records show that both the Promissory Note and the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage were signed by Jovita, not only for herself but also as petitioner's attorney-in-fact, based on a Special Power of Attorney. This established that petitioner was a party to the loan and the mortgage constituted over the properties. Therefore, his right to possess the properties was based on titles already conveyed to respondents, who were the highest bidders and held new transfer certificates of title. The fact that he was not named in the writ of possession did not render it unenforceable against him, as he was a party to the documents forming the basis of the foreclosure. The issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding, and a third party claiming superior rights would not have an opportunity to be heard. However, since petitioner was not such a third party, the ex-parte possessory writ could be enforced against him. On the validity of the Special Power of Attorney: The Court found no justifiable reason to disturb the CA's prima facie finding that the Special Power of Attorney dated July 9, 1992, is valid. The Court noted that the CA's finding was preliminary, made to resolve the issue of injunctive relief, and would not bind the RTC in the pending annulment case. The presumption of validity for notarized documents, including the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, is rebuttable and can be overturned by evidence. However, in resolving the present petition, the Court had to rely on this presumption. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, being a notarized document, is presumed to be valid and duly executed. The RTC, in issuing the writ of possession, could not exercise discretion or judgment regarding the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure process; these matters are to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. Therefore, the writ of possession issued was in order, and the RTC erred in enjoining its implementation. The Court emphasized that issuing an injunction that would dispose of the main case without trial, by casting doubt on the acquisition of properties without further proof, would prejudge the main case and reverse the rule on the burden of proof.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession issued pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial duty of the court and cannot be enjoined by a co-equal court, unless a third party is in actual possession claiming a right adverse to the debtor/mortgagor. The petitioner, having been a party to the mortgage through his attorney-in-fact, cannot be considered such a third party.