National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation v. Tarobal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Joy M. Dela Cruz obtained a housing loan from China Banking Corporation, secured by a mortgage on her house and lot. The loan was subsequently assigned to the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). Due to Dela Cruz's failure to pay her amortizations, NHMFC initiated an extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage. NHMFC emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction. Despite the issuance of a Certificate of Sale and the expiration of the redemption period, Dela Cruz failed to surrender possession of the property. Procedural History: NHMFC filed an ex parte Petition for a Writ of Possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City, which was granted. Respondent Florita C. Tarobal, who claimed to have purchased the property from Dela Cruz in 2005 and made improvements, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting she was not notified of the foreclosure and that her due process rights were violated. The RTC denied her motion and issued a Writ of Possession, which was subsequently implemented, ejecting Dela Cruz and persons claiming rights under her, including Tarobal. Tarobal then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for issuing the writ without resolving her motion for reconsideration. The CA denied the petition but ordered NHMFC to give priority to Tarobal to reacquire the property. NHMFC sought reconsideration of this latter order, which the CA also denied. The Petition: NHMFC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's Decision and Resolution. NHMFC contends that the CA erred by exceeding its jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding by ordering NHMFC to give priority to Tarobal to reacquire the property. NHMFC argues that the CA should have limited its review to whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession and that Tarobal was already ejected from the property, rendering the CA's order moot and prejudicial to the buyer in NHMFC's Housing Fair Program. The core issues are whether the CA's assailed portion of the decision was within the scope of a Rule 65 certiorari and whether the CA committed reversible error in ordering NHMFC to give priority to Tarobal for reacquisition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the petitioner to give priority to the respondent to reacquire the foreclosed property, exceeding its jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding. Whether the assailed portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision regarding the respondent's right to reacquire the property was within the function, office, and scope of a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, considering the respondent's failure to exercise her right to redeem the property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 22, 2012, and Resolution dated March 7, 2013, insofar as they ordered NHMFC to give priority to Florita C. Tarobal to reacquire the subject property. The Court held that the CA overstepped its authority in passing judgment on the right of respondent to reacquire the property, as this was beyond the scope of a certiorari petition which is limited to reviewing errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals exceeding its jurisdiction and the propriety of the CA's order for priority reacquisition: The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is strictly limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The CA erred when it passed judgment on the right of respondent Tarobal to reacquire the subject property, as this issue was not raised in the original petition before the RTC and was beyond the competence of the CA in a certiorari proceeding. The CA's order giving priority to respondent Tarobal to reacquire the property was an overreach of its certiorari jurisdiction, rendering the affirmed writ of possession meaningless and would prejudice the rights of the buyer in NHMFC's Housing Fair Program. The CA should have limited its review to the procedural aspect of the RTC's issuance of the writ of possession and not delve into substantive matters concerning the respondent's right to reacquire the property. On the respondent's status and rights and the scope of certiorari under Rule 65: The Court noted that respondent Tarobal, as a transferee of the mortgagor Dela Cruz, merely stepped into the shoes of Dela Cruz. The CA's finding that Tarobal was presently occupying the property was contradicted by the Sheriff's Return, which showed that Tarobal was ejected on April 5, 2011. Furthermore, Tarobal had failed to exercise her right to redeem the property within the redemption period and had not tendered any amount as reservation or down payment while the property was still available. Therefore, the CA's decision regarding the respondent's right to reacquire the property was outside the scope of a writ of certiorari under Rule 65.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is strictly confined to the determination of the propriety of the trial court's jurisdiction and whether the exercise of such jurisdiction has been attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot pass upon issues beyond the scope of the original petition before the lower court, such as the right of a party to reacquire a foreclosed property, which matters are not within the purview of a certiorari proceeding.