Castro v. Se
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Eduardo and Charito Perez obtained a loan from Spouses Isagani and Diosdada Castro, securing it with a real estate mortgage on an unregistered parcel of land. Upon default, the Castros extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property at auction. However, prior to the foreclosure, the Spouses Perez had sold the property to Spouses Regino and Violeta dela Cruz, who subsequently obtained a new Tax Declaration for the property in their name. Procedural History: The Spouses Castro filed a complaint against the Spouses Perez and Spouses dela Cruz for annulment of the deed of sale and the new Tax Declaration. Subsequently, the Spouses Castro obtained a writ of possession from a different branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and evicted the Spouses dela Cruz. The Spouses dela Cruz, in their answer to the amended complaint, prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to be restored to possession. The RTC granted this injunction, finding that the writ of possession was improperly implemented against the dela Cruzs, who were owners in their own right and not claiming under the Perezes. The Spouses Castro's motion for reconsideration was denied, and their subsequent petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was also denied. The Petition: The Spouses Castro filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision which upheld the RTC's issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The petition argues that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction. The Supreme Court, however, found no grave abuse of discretion, emphasizing that the Spouses dela Cruz were in actual possession of the property prior to the foreclosure and that the Castros' ex-parte procurement of a writ of possession disturbed the status quo. The Court affirmed that the true owner must resort to proper judicial process for recovery and that the issuance of the injunction was a proper means to restore possession, consistent with Article 539 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Whether the writ of possession was improperly implemented against respondent Spouses dela Cruz.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's exercise of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The trial court anchored its order on Article 539 of the Civil Code, which states that every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession and should he be disturbed, he shall be protected or restored by legal means. Respondent Spouses dela Cruz were in actual possession of the property before the foreclosure, having purchased it in 1997 and obtained a new Tax Declaration. Petitioners obtained a writ of possession ex parte from Branch 16 of the RTC without informing the court of the previous sale to third parties and their actual possession. The enforcement of this writ against Spouses dela Cruz disturbed the status quo ante litem. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore Spouses dela Cruz to possession, as this was a means established by law to protect their right as possessors under a claim of ownership. The Court reiterated that the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court, and such discretion will not be interfered with except upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was absent in this case. The Court emphasized that taking real property without the benefit of proper judicial intervention, especially against parties not involved in the foreclosure proceedings, is impermissible. Article 433 of the Civil Code mandates that actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership, and the true owner must resort to judicial process for recovery, which process must afford the third party an opportunity to be heard. On the improper implementation of the writ of possession: The writ of possession was issued by Branch 16 of the RTC based on the extrajudicial foreclosure initiated by petitioners. However, respondent Spouses dela Cruz were not parties to the mortgage or the foreclosure proceedings. They had purchased the property from the original mortgagors, Spouses Perez, prior to the foreclosure and were in actual possession, evidenced by their Tax Declaration. The trial court correctly found that the writ of possession, which commanded the sheriff to require Spouses Perez and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the property, was improperly implemented against Spouses dela Cruz because they were not claiming rights under Spouses Perez but were owners in their own right. Therefore, their restoration to possession through a preliminary mandatory injunction was justified under Article 539 of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is proper to restore possession to a party who was dispossessed thereof through an improperly implemented writ of possession, especially when such party was not a participant in the foreclosure proceedings and had actual possession under a claim of ownership prior to the foreclosure.