Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation (GACDC), represented by its president, petitioner Renato Legaspi, obtained a loan of P2,600,000 from PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCILFI). As security, GACDC, through petitioners Renato and Delia Legaspi, executed a real estate mortgage for P450,000 in favor of PCILFI, covering three parcels of land. Upon GACDC's failure to pay the loan at maturity, the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially, with PCILFI emerging as the highest bidder. Procedural History: Following the extrajudicial foreclosure and the issuance of a certificate of sale to PCILFI, the latter filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 57. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the sheriff to eject GACDC and place PCILFI in possession. GACDC subsequently filed an omnibus motion and a supplement thereto, seeking to set aside the certificate of sale, cancel the writ of possession, and suspend its implementation. The RTC denied these motions, and its denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: Petitioners seek a review of the CA's decision through a special civil action for certiorari, arguing that the petition for the writ of possession was improper due to an allegedly unauthorized signatory on the verification and certification against forum shopping. They also contend that an appeal, not the motion filed, was the appropriate remedy under Act No. 3135. Petitioners assert that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC's orders. The core of their argument is that the mortgage itself was void, thus invalidating the foreclosure and subsequent possession proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was proper in form and substance considering the signatory of the verification and certification against forum shopping was allegedly not duly authorized. Whether appeal is an appropriate remedy in actions for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was not an initiatory pleading, thus rendering the verification and certification against forum shopping unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court held that while Act No. 3135 provides for a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession on specific grounds, the nullity of the mortgage or foreclosure requires a separate and independent action, and not a mere motion within the proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for writ of possession and the verification/certification against forum shopping: The Court clarified that a certification on non-forum shopping is required only in a complaint or a petition that is an initiatory pleading. The petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, in the context of extrajudicial foreclosure, is not an initiatory pleading but is more akin to a motion. The right to possession is based on the purchaser's ownership, and the mere filing of an ex parte motion for a writ of possession suffices. Therefore, no verification and certification on non-forum shopping need be attached to such a motion. Consequently, it is immaterial that the verification and certification were signed by the lawyer, as such a lapse does not render the petition defective in form because it was not a mandatory requirement in this instance. The Court emphasized that the distinction between a motion and a petition lies in their purpose: a motion does not initiate litigation but addresses matters arising in the progress of a case. On the appropriate remedy under Act No. 3135: The Court explained that Section 8 of Act No. 3135 provides a specific remedy for the debtor to petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession within thirty days after the purchaser is given possession. The grounds for this petition are limited to (1) that the mortgage was not violated, or (2) that the sale was not made in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135. The provision clearly states that either party may appeal from the judge's order on this petition. However, the petitioners in this case filed an omnibus motion and a supplement to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, alleging the nullity of the mortgage. The Court stressed that the nullity of the mortgage is not a ground covered by Section 8 of Act No. 3135. Such a claim requires a separate and independent action for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself. The Court reiterated that regardless of any pending suit for annulment, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied the petitioners' motions as the remedy under Section 8 was inapplicable to their claim of a void mortgage.
Main Doctrine
A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading and therefore does not require a verification and certification against forum shopping. Questions regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession; a separate and independent action for annulment is the proper remedy for such claims.