Gopiao v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (MBTC) purchased real properties at a public auction following the foreclosure of a mortgage. MBTC registered the properties in its name and subsequently obtained a writ of possession from the RTC. A notice to vacate was served on Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation, represented by the Spouses Legaspi. Procedural History: Petitioner Juanito M. Gopiao filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and a motion for intervention, alleging ownership by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated May 20, 1995, executed by the Spouses Legaspi in his favor. The RTC denied his claims, stating his motion was "too late in the day" and his action "puts his action in doubt" due to the long delay in registering the property. The CA affirmed the RTC's denial, finding no grave abuse of discretion, and noted that the Deed of Sale was un-notarized and unregistered, and its authenticity was not proven. The CA also highlighted MBTC's status as a mortgagee in good faith, having verified clean titles and found no occupants prior to approving the loan. The Petition: Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying his intervention, that the CA ruled on a non-issue regarding the bank's good faith, and that the CA erred in ruling on double sale instead of his preferred right.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's intervention and motion to recall the writ of possession. Whether the CA erred in ruling on the good faith of the respondent bank. Whether the CA erred in ruling on the existence of double sale instead of the preferred right of the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The orders of the RTC and the decision and resolution of the CA are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of intervention and motion to recall the writ of possession: The Court affirmed the RTC's denial, agreeing with the CA that no grave abuse of discretion was committed. A writ of possession is a ministerial function of the court following a foreclosure sale. While exceptions exist, such as when a third party is in possession claiming adverse rights, the petitioner's claim was found to be unsubstantiated. The Deed of Sale was un-notarized, unregistered, and its authenticity was not proven. Furthermore, the titles to the properties showed no trace of the petitioner's claim, and the respondent bank found no occupants when it inspected the property prior to the loan approval. The petitioner's failure to register the property or pay taxes thereon for over 20 years cast significant doubt on his claim of possession and ownership. On the CA ruling on the good faith of the respondent bank: The Court disagreed with the petitioner that the CA erred in ruling on the good faith of the respondent bank. The CA correctly noted the good faith of MBTC, which had verified clean titles and found no occupants before approving the loan. On the CA ruling on the existence of double sale: Jurisprudence supports the application of the double sale rule even when one of the sales is a foreclosure sale. While the CA's discussion on double sale was based on the supposition that a sale to petitioner had indeed occurred, it correctly pointed out that even if petitioner established possession, he would still need to overcome the double sale rule where the bank's good faith is material. The Court reiterated that an independent civil action is an available remedy for the petitioner to vindicate his claim of ownership.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a foreclosure sale is a ministerial function of the court, which generally cannot be enjoined or restrained, even by the filing of a case questioning the validity of the foreclosure sale. Exceptions exist, such as when a third party in possession claims a right adverse to the debtor-mortgagor, but such claims must be substantiated with sufficient evidence, and the third party's possession must be certain and undisputed.