Ingles v. Esteban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose D. Ingles, Sr. and Josefina F. Ingles (Josefina) mortgaged their 2,265 square meter land in Quezon City to respondent Charles J. Esteban (Charles) to secure a ₱6,200,000.00 loan. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage contained a typographical error in the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) number but accurately described the land. After the loan matured and Jose D. Ingles, Sr. died, Josefina failed to pay. Charles initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The mortgaged property, which had been subdivided into ten lots under new TCTs, was sold at public auction to Charles as the highest bidder. Procedural History: The Ingleses filed a complaint for Annulment of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, alleging deception in the signing of the documents. Charles filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession. The two cases were consolidated. The Ingleses also filed a petition for Annulment of Final Orders with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the orders that allowed the extrajudicial foreclosure. The CA dismissed this petition for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Ingleses filed a certiorari petition with the CA challenging the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) order allowing Charles to present ex-parte evidence for his writ of possession application, arguing that consolidation tied the two cases. The CA dismissed this certiorari petition due to defective verification and certification against forum shopping. Charles then filed a mandamus petition with the CA, seeking to compel the RTC to resolve pending incidents. The CA granted the mandamus petition. The Ingleses appealed these CA rulings to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court sought to annul the CA's dismissal of the Ingleses' petition for Annulment of Final Orders (G.R. No. 141809), the CA's dismissal of their certiorari petition (G.R. No. 147186), and the CA's grant of Charles' mandamus petition (G.R. No. 173641).
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Ingleses’ petition for Annulment of Final Orders. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on grounds of defective verification and certification against forum shopping. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing Charles to present ex-parte evidence for his writ of possession application despite the consolidation of cases. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Charles’ mandamus petition to compel the RTC to resolve pending incidents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied all three consolidated petitions. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the Ingleses' petition for Annulment of Final Orders and their certiorari petition. It also affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting Charles' mandamus petition. The Court ordered the deconsolidation of Civil Case No. Q-98-33277 and LRC Case No. Q-10766 (98), directing that Civil Case No. Q-98-33277 be resolved with dispatch and that the Writ of Possession in favor of Charles in LRC Case No. Q-10766 (98) be issued immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for Annulment of Final Orders (G.R. No. 141809): The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal, holding that orders issued by an executive judge in an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding are administrative in nature and do not fall under the purview of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which exclusively governs the annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions in "civil actions" of "Regional Trial Courts." The Court clarified that extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings are not civil actions but administrative functions, and the executive judge's role is ministerial. Even if the executive judge allegedly exceeded jurisdiction, it did not transform the administrative order into a judicial one subject to annulment under Rule 47. The Court emphasized that the nature of the issuance, not the allegation of lack of jurisdiction, determines its amenability to annulment under Rule 47. On the dismissal of the certiorari petition (G.R. No. 147186): The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition solely on the ground of defective verification and certification against forum shopping. Citing Altres v. Empleo, the Court held that there was substantial compliance with the verification requirement as at least one of the petitioners, who had ample knowledge of the allegations, signed it. Regarding the certification against forum shopping, the Court noted that while it should ideally be signed by all petitioners, substantial compliance may be appreciated when all petitioners share a common interest and cause of action, as in this case where the Ingleses are immediate family members. However, despite finding the dismissal erroneous on technicality, the Court opted to resolve the merits of the certiorari petition itself, finding it without merit. On the consolidation of cases and the writ of possession (G.R. No. 147186): The Supreme Court ruled that the consolidation of the petition for a writ of possession (LRC Case No. Q-10766 (98)) with the action for annulment of mortgage (Civil Case No. Q-98-33277) was no longer proper. The Court reiterated the doctrine from Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils., stating that consolidation is not mandatory and rests within the court's discretion. Crucially, when the purchaser's title has already been consolidated and the right of redemption has expired, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a matter of right. In this case, Charles had already consolidated his title over the lots before the RTC allowed him to present ex-parte evidence. Therefore, the consolidation had lost its basis, and the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing Charles to present evidence for his writ of possession application. The Court also found that the consolidation had actually delayed the resolution of both cases, warranting their separation. On the mandamus petition (G.R. No. 173641): The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision granting Charles' mandamus petition. The Court reasoned that with the resolution of the issues in G.R. Nos. 141809 and 147186, there was no longer any legal basis for the suspension of proceedings in the RTC. The Court ordered the deconsolidation of the cases, the prompt resolution of Civil Case No. Q-98-33277, and the immediate issuance of the Writ of Possession in favor of Charles in LRC Case No. Q-10766 (98), consistent with the RTC's earlier order granting the ex-parte petition.
Main Doctrine
The Court clarified the procedural remedies available for challenging orders in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, the requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping, and the conditions under which a petition for a writ of possession may be consolidated with an action for annulment of mortgage.