GR 122206; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997
SPOUSES RAFAEL Y. ARCEGA and TERESITA F. ARCEGA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (17th Division), and RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Rafael and Teresita Arcega obtained two loans totaling P900,000.00 from respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) in June 1988. The loans were secured by a real estate mortgage on their property. After paying about P300,000.00, they defaulted. RCBC foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold at a public auction on May 21, 1990, with RCBC as the highest bidder. The Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was registered on May 25, 1990. The redemption period was set to expire on May 25, 1991. Two days before this expiration, Rafael Arcega requested a three-week extension, which RCBC granted, extending the period to June 14, 1991. On June 11, 1991, petitioners filed a civil case against RCBC for annulment of the foreclosure sale, alleging lack of notice and publication. After the extended redemption period lapsed, RCBC executed an Affidavit of Consolidation on June 17, 1991, and a new title was issued in its name. Subsequently, RCBC filed a petition for a writ of possession. The Regional Trial Court granted petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent RCBC from transferring the property. The Court of Appeals nullified this writ upon RCBC’s petition for certiorari. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
RULING
No, the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition. For a writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, the complainant must have a clear and unmistakable legal right requiring urgent protection to prevent serious damage. Petitioners did not possess such a clear legal right. They defaulted on their loan, failed to redeem the property within the extended period, and only questioned the foreclosure proceedings three days before the original redemption period expired, which appeared to be an afterthought. RCBC, as the purchaser at the foreclosure sale to whom title had been conveyed, had a clear right of ownership and possession under Act No. 3135 and Rule 39. The foreclosure proceeding enjoys a presumption of regularity, and petitioners failed to present convincing proof of irregularity. The issuance of the writ was unjustified.