Torres v. Esteves
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Honorio Torres, Jr. and his brother Michael Torres were issued TCT No. T-70954 over a 304-square meter lot. On January 28, 1999, Honorio, Jr. mortgaged his 152-square meter share to his uncle, respondent Ramon T. Torres, and Agnes Torres, for P1,869,640.78, with a waiver of the right of redemption. Due to non-payment, the spouses Torres initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Procedural History: A Sheriff's Notice of Auction Sale was issued for January 11, 2000. Petitioner filed a complaint for the nullity of the mortgage and sale. An attempt to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Executive Judge was denied, as the case was already raffled to RTC Branch 5, presided by respondent judge, who had jurisdiction over incidents. The auction sale proceeded, with the spouses Torres as the highest bidders. A Sheriff's Certificate of Sale and later a Final Certificate of Sale were issued. Petitioner filed an amended complaint. Respondents filed a motion for a writ of possession. The RTC, in an Order dated August 8, 2002, granted the writ of possession. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated September 18, 2002. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on September 25, 2002, and the records were ordered elevated to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the RTC orders and the writ of possession. He also sought to enjoin further proceedings. Notably, petitioner concealed the fact that he had filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court erred in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and subsequently granting the petition despite the petitioner's failure to observe the hierarchy of courts and his concealment of a pending appeal. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession for the entire 304 square meters, including the portion not mortgaged by the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has the legal standing to question the inclusion of his brother Michael's share in the writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court's Resolution dated October 28, 2002, issuing a TRO, and subsequent resolutions granting the motion to retract the withdrawal of the petition and denying the motion to recall the TRO are REVOKED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to observe the hierarchy of courts and concealment of appeal: The Supreme Court held that the petition should have been dismissed at the outset for violating the policy on the hierarchy of courts. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court via certiorari is proscribed when the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction, absent compelling reasons. The Court emphasized that this policy has been strictly observed for almost twenty years. Furthermore, the petitioner misled the Court by swearing he had not commenced any other action involving the same issues when he had filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, which was given due course. This act, while not strictly forum shopping, demonstrated a lack of candor and potentially bad faith. The Court noted that the petitioner's ambivalence in withdrawing and then retracting his petition made a mockery of the judicial process. The Court found no need to exercise its original jurisdiction in this case, as the issues could have been properly addressed by the Court of Appeals or the RTC. On the issuance of the writ of possession for the entire lot: The Supreme Court ruled that, with respect to the petitioner's one-half portion, the respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of the writ of possession. This is because the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, after the period of redemption, is a ministerial function of the court. The Court cited Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended, and numerous Supreme Court decisions establishing that the pendency of a suit questioning the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure sale is not a valid ground to stop the issuance of a writ of possession. However, regarding the inclusion of Michael Torres's share, the Court found that the petitioner was not the proper party to question this act. Michael Torres, who had rights and interests over that portion, was the one who could properly contest it. Since Michael Torres had already sold his share to Torrent Development Corporation, of which respondent Ramon T. Torres was president, the petitioner was deemed bereft of cause of action concerning that portion. On the petitioner's legal standing: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner lacked the legal standing to question the respondent judge's actuations concerning the one-half portion belonging to his brother, Michael Torres. The Court stated that the petitioner is not the proper party and therefore has no legal standing or personality to question before the Supreme Court the respondent judge's actions regarding Michael's share. The issue concerning Michael's share could only be properly contested by Michael Torres himself. Since Michael had already sold his share, the petitioner's cause of action regarding that portion was extinguished.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial function of the court, and the pendency of a suit questioning the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale is not a valid ground to suspend or restrain its execution. Furthermore, direct recourse to the Supreme Court via certiorari is proscribed when the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction, absent compelling reasons.