Darcen v. V.R. Gonzales Credit Enterprises
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Mamerto Darcen and Flora de Guzman, married in 1947, had seven children including petitioners Teodoro, Mamerto Jr., Nestor, Benilda, and Elenita. Mamerto died in 1986, leaving three titled lots in Baliuag, Bulacan under TCT Nos. RT-19565 (T-41394), RT-19566 (T-11678), and RT-19564 (T-193099) in his and Flora's name. Petitioners allege brother Manuel forged an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver in 1990, waiving heirs' shares to Flora; a fire destroyed originals, leading to reconstitution on April 7, 1992 as TCT Nos. T-19267, T-19268, T-19269 solely in Flora's name, with petitioners annotating hereditary claims per Rule 74, Sec. 4. Flora died December 4, 2000. In 1995, Flora allegedly mortgaged the lots to respondent V.R. Gonzales Credit Enterprises, Inc. (loans: P3M on T-19269, P3.5M and P500K on others), with brothers Manuel and Arturo as witnesses; petitioners claim forgeries, no knowledge. Respondent foreclosed extrajudicially in 2007, auctioned lots November 18, 2008 for P8M (itself highest bidder), consolidated after redemption lapsed. Procedural History: Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 333-M-2007 (RTC Br. 78) for annulment of mortgages, foreclosure, sale on forgery grounds. Respondent filed ex parte petition for writ of possession (RTC Br. 81, P-826-2009) December 8, 2009; petitioners opposed February 25, 2010 citing forum-shopping (non-disclosure of Br. 78 case). RTC Br. 81 denied opposition March 16, 2010 (ministerial, no forum-shopping per Sps. Ong v. CA), denied MR May 4, 2010; issued writ February 28, 2011, notice to vacate April 26, 2011, eviction October 4, 2011. RTC Br. 78 dismissed Civil Case August 10, 2010 (mortgages valid), on appeal CA-G.R. CV No. 96251. Petitioners filed certiorari/prohibition CA-G.R. SP No. 114265 June 2, 2010; CA denied July 20, 2011 (no forum-shopping, ministerial writ), MR denied December 12, 2011. The Petition: Petitioners argue CA erred: (1) forum-shopping by non-disclosure; (2) no jurisdiction over possession amid Br. 78 case; (3) they are adverse third-party co-heirs (forged settlement/mortgages), citing Villanueva v. Cherdan (ministerial writ ceases for adverse third parties); claim independent ownership adverse to Flora/respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent committed forum-shopping by filing ex parte writ petition without disclosing pending annulment case. Whether the issuance of the writ of possession remained ministerial, considering petitioners' third-party adverse possession claims and their failure to prove such status. Whether the petition for review was rendered moot by the execution of the writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The CA correctly upheld the RTC's issuance of the ex parte writ of possession as ministerial post-consolidation; petitioners failed to prove adverse third-party possession; petition moot post-eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
On forum-shopping and jurisdiction: The ex parte petition for writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading requiring certification against forum-shopping, as it is summary and non-adversarial under Act No. 3135, Sec. 7, benefiting only the purchaser without notice to others (Asia United Bank v. Goodland). Pendency of annulment (Civil Case No. 333-M-2007) does not divest jurisdiction or create litis pendentia, as writ issuance is ministerial and non-prejudicial to merits (BPI Family Savings Bank v. Golden Power; Sagarbarria v. Phil. Business Bank), allowing parallel proceedings without encroaching RTC Br. 78's determination of mortgage validity. RTC Br. 81 properly cited Sps. Ong v. CA, emphasizing no need to examine foreclosure regularity. Thus, no grave abuse in denying opposition on these grounds, as possession is incidental to title transfer post-auction and consolidation. On ministerial writ and third-party exception: Post-redemption lapse and consolidation, purchaser's absolute ownership entitles it to possession as of right under Act No. 3135, Sec. 7 (no bond needed), a non-litigious ex parte proceeding (Spouses Arquiza v. CA; Metropolitan Bank v. Santos). Exception per Rule 39, Sec. 33 (suppletory via Act 3135, Sec. 6) applies only if third party holds adversely to mortgagor (independent title, e.g., co-owner not privy to debtor: China Banking v. Lozada; Villanueva v. Cherdan distinguished as requiring unchallenged actual possession under adverse claim). Petitioners not adverse: titles solely in Flora's name post-1992 reconstitution; they annotated Rule 74, Sec. 4 claims on her titles (Entry No. 7550), consenting to settlement; 12-15 year delay in challenging forgery estops claims; no annulment suit on settlement; failed to present documents at February 26, 2010 hearing despite opportunity (due process satisfied per Unchuan v. CA). RTC/CA correctly found no proof, rendering writ ministerial. On mootness: Writ executed October 4, 2011 (eviction, respondent in possession); no live controversy remains, as restoration seekable in pending CA appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 96251) if merits favor petitioners (Madriaga v. China Banking; Sps. de Vera v. Agloro).
Main Doctrine
In extrajudicial foreclosures under Act No. 3135, after the redemption period lapses and title consolidates in the purchaser's name, the RTC must issue an ex parte writ of possession as a ministerial duty, without need of bond or notice to adverse parties, as possession is an incident of absolute ownership. This rule holds even with pending annulment suits challenging mortgage validity or foreclosure, as the writ issues without prejudice to the annulment's outcome, preserving the purchaser's possession rights. However, per Section 33, Rule 39 (suppletory via Act 3135, Sec. 6), the ministerial character ceases if a third party possesses the property adversely to the mortgagor, meaning under an independent claim of title or right (e.g., co-owner, tenant, usufructuary), not merely as successor to the mortgagor. In such cases, due process requires a hearing to ascertain the adverse possession's nature before ejectment. Here, petitioners failed to prove adverse third-party status despite opportunity, as their annotations recognized the titles in their mother's name and long inaction estopped claims of forgery or co-ownership.