G.R. No. 148630 ; June 20, 2006
ANGELO DWIGHT PENSON, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MELCHOR and VIRGINIA MARANAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Angelo Dwight Penson is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Parañaque, which constitute the family home. He discovered that his wife, Jovita, acting under a Special Power of Attorney, mortgaged the properties to respondents to secure a loan. Jovita later filed an action against respondents, which culminated in a Compromise Agreement approved by the RTC, Branch 257. Upon Jovita’s default, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and titles were issued to respondents. Respondents then secured a writ of possession from the same RTC branch in a separate land registration case.
Before the writ could be enforced, petitioner filed a new complaint for Annulment of Title with Damages before RTC, Branch 260, alleging the mortgage documents were fraudulent. This new branch granted petitioner’s prayer for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the writ of possession issued by Branch 257. Respondents challenged this injunction via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, arguing it constituted unlawful interference with a co-equal court’s processes.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC, Branch 260, committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that enjoined the enforcement of the writ of possession issued by RTC, Branch 257.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The issuance of the preliminary injunction by Branch 260 constituted improper interference with the final processes of a coordinate court. A writ of possession issued in an ex-parte proceeding following a foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty; the issuing court’s duty ends upon its issuance. The duty to execute it is vested in the sheriff, acting as an officer of the court. Therefore, a separate court cannot, through an injunction, control or interfere with this execution process, as this would violate the principle of judicial stability and co-equal authority. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party claiming a better right is not an injunction from another branch but an independent action to assert ownership, wherein he may seek a temporary restraining order. The preliminary injunction issued by Branch 260 effectively nullified the writ from Branch 257, which is impermissible. Petitioner’s remedy lies in prosecuting his annulment case, where he must prove the alleged fraud, but he cannot prevent the enforcement of the final writ through an injunction from a coordinate court.