San Fernando Rural Bank v. Pampanga Omnibus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation (PODC) obtained two loans from petitioner San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. (SFRBI) and Masantol Rural Bank, Inc., secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land. PODC also obtained a separate loan from SFRBI, with its president's daughter and son-in-law as co-borrowers. Upon PODC's failure to pay, SFRBI extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, emerging as the winning bidder. The Certificate of Sale was registered on June 7, 2001, with a one-year redemption period. Procedural History: SFRBI did not file for a writ of possession during the redemption period. On May 11, 2002, PODC assigned its right to redeem to respondent Dominic G. Aquino. Aquino offered to redeem the property, but SFRBI demanded a higher amount, including the spouses Garbes' loan. Aquino paid the redemption price as computed by the Ex-Officio Sheriff, and a Certificate of Redemption was issued on June 7, 2002. SFRBI subsequently filed an Affidavit of Consolidation on June 10, 2002, which was entered in the Registry of Deeds. The Register of Deeds consulted the Land Registration Authority (LRA) regarding the conflicting claims. The RTC granted SFRBI's petition for a writ of possession. The CA, in a petition for certiorari, set aside the RTC orders, ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. SFRBI then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: SFRBI assails the CA's decision, arguing that the RTC's order granting the writ of possession was final and appealable, not subject to certiorari. SFRBI also contends that the redemption period had already expired when Aquino attempted to redeem the property, and that the CA erred in applying Act No. 3135 instead of Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sanctioning the respondents' resort to Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, questioning a final order and not an interlocutory order of the RTC. Whether the respondents were guilty of forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error when it ruled on a matter that was not and could not have been submitted for its adjudication; and whether the Honorable Court is precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Whether the petitioner SFRBI, as well as the Honorable Court, is precluded from applying the governing law, under which the redemption period had clearly expired. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it granted the private respondent's prayer for an issuance of writ of possession in its favor when serious issues affecting private respondent's right to possess the subject lot was still pending determination by the Land Registration Authority. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it allowed private respondent to post a redemption bond beyond the redemption period. Whether respondent Aquino had lawfully redeemed the property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside and reversing the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the RTC's order granting the writ of possession was final and appealable, making the CA's use of certiorari improper. The Court found that the CA erred in its application of procedural rules and in its substantive findings regarding the redemption period and the validity of the redemption.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of Certiorari: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in treating the RTC's Order granting the writ of possession as interlocutory. Orders granting a writ of possession under Act No. 3135, as amended, are final and dispositive of the proceedings for possession, making them appealable under Rule 41. Therefore, the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 was inappropriate, as it is reserved for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment correctible by appeal. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a remedy of last resort, available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. On Forum Shopping and Other Issues: The Court found no merit in the respondents' claims of forum shopping. It also noted that the RTC's order granting the writ of possession was final, and the subsequent denial of the motion to quash was also a final order, both appealable. On the Application of Law and Review of Factual Findings: The Court pointed out that the CA erred in applying Act No. 3135, as amended, instead of Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791, the General Banking Act of 2000. The latter law provides a shorter redemption period for juridical persons, which was crucial in determining the validity of the redemption. The petitioner was not estopped from invoking Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791, as the failure to invoke an applicable law does not create a vested right, and an erroneous interpretation does not give rise to estoppel. The Court stressed that it behooves the appellate court to apply the governing law regardless of the theories advocated by the parties. The Court also stated that it is precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. On the Redemption Period and Validity of Redemption: The Court found that the CA erred in its substantive ruling. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the redemption period under Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 versus Act No. 3135. Petitioner argued that the redemption period expired upon the registration of the Certificate of Foreclosure Sale on June 7, 2001, or within three months thereafter, whichever was earlier. Since PODC assigned its right to redeem on May 11, 2002, long after the expiration of the redemption period under R.A. No. 8791, the assignment and subsequent redemption by Aquino were invalid. The Court noted that the LRA itself admitted that the issue of the correct redemption price was a matter for the regular courts to resolve, indicating that the RTC, in its general jurisdiction, was the proper venue for such determination. On the Ministerial Duty of the RTC: The Court clarified that the ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of possession does not become discretionary due to pending collateral issues or consultations before administrative bodies like the LRA. The existence of a Certificate of Redemption and an Affidavit of Consolidation, and the subsequent consultation by the Register of Deeds with the LRA, did not divest the RTC of its jurisdiction to issue the writ of possession. The Court reiterated that the RTC, acting as a land registration court, has limited jurisdiction, and issues concerning the validity of the deed of assignment and the legality of the redemption were matters for the RTC in its general jurisdiction to resolve. On the Redemption Bond: The Court did not directly address whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed private respondent to post a redemption bond beyond the redemption period, but the discussion on the redemption period and its expiration implies that allowing such a bond would be inconsistent with the applicable law. On the Lawful Redemption of Property: The Court did not rule on the substantive issue of whether respondent Aquino had lawfully redeemed the property, stating that this issue would be passed upon by the RTC in Civil Case No. 12785.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court's Order granting a writ of possession was interlocutory; such an order is final and appealable. A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question an order that is final, unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of possession does not become discretionary due to pending collateral issues or consultations before administrative bodies.