G.R. No. 221133 , June 28, 2021
Land Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Spouses Milu and Rosalina De Jesus, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Milu and Rosalina De Jesus filed a Complaint for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note and Foreclosure Sale and Damages with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. They sought to prevent Land Bank from consolidating ownership over properties after a foreclosure sale. During the TRO hearing on September 23, 2009, the spouses withdrew their TRO application based on the alleged commitment of Land Bank’s counsel, Atty. Napoleon Latosa, that the bank would not consolidate ownership pending the hearing on the preliminary injunction. The RTC set the hearing for the preliminary injunction and the main case for October 28, 2009. However, on October 28, 2009, the spouses moved to reset the hearing. Subsequently, on November 25, 2009, they moved to set the main case for pre-trial instead, which the RTC scheduled for December 9, 2009. The case experienced delays, including due to the death of Atty. Latosa. On May 22, 2012, Land Bank, through new counsel, manifested its intent to consolidate ownership, arguing the redemption period had lapsed and no writ of preliminary injunction had been issued. The spouses filed a Counter-Manifestation and Motion, praying for a hearing on the preliminary injunction and a status quo order. The RTC, in its August 22, 2012 Order, denied the motion for a status quo order, ruling that consolidation was Land Bank’s right after the lapse of the redemption period and that a status quo order would be tantamount to an injunction requiring a hearing. The RTC denied the spouses’ motion for reconsideration on November 29, 2012. The spouses filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, reversed the RTC Orders, and remanded the case for a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction, finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by not conducting a hearing. Land Bank’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Land Bank then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the spouses abandoned their application for preliminary injunction, the CA’s decision was an injunction issued without a hearing, and the application was moot due to the ongoing trial and Land Bank’s consolidation of ownership.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC’s August 22, 2012 and November 29, 2012 Orders for supposedly being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted Land Bank’s petition, reversed the CA’s Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC’s Orders. The Supreme Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The spouses De Jesus, by moving to set the case for pre-trial instead of proceeding with their application for preliminary injunction and by failing to actively pursue said application for over two years, were deemed to have abandoned it. Their actions were inconsistent with a claim of urgent necessity for injunctive relief. Furthermore, the issuance of a status quo order would have been tantamount to a preliminary injunction, which cannot be granted without a hearing. The RTC correctly ruled that Land Bank’s right to consolidate ownership became absolute upon the lapse of the redemption period without redemption. Finally, the CA’s directive to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction had been rendered moot and academic because Land Bank had already consolidated its ownership over the properties, making the act sought to be enjoined a fait accompli.