G.R. No. 103149; November 15, 2000
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE NICASIO O. DE LOS REYES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 11, MARIA LETBEE ANG, BLANQUITA ANG, LETICIA L. ANG HERNANDEZ, JESUS L. ANG, JR., LORETA L. ANG, BONIFACIO L. ANG, LORENA L. ANG, LANI L. ANG, JEMMUEL L. ANG and LIZA L. ANG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIBank) filed a claim for a deficiency judgment against the estate of the deceased Jesus T. Ang, Sr. The claim arose from a loan secured by a real estate mortgage executed by the decedent. After extrajudicial foreclosure and a public auction where PCIBank was the highest bidder, a deficiency balance remained. The judicial administratrix of the estate opposed the claim. Subsequently, Blanquita Ang, the decedent’s surviving spouse, filed a motion for leave to intervene, alleging that the mortgaged properties were conjugal. She claimed her signatures on the mortgage documents were forged, that she did not consent to the encumbrance, and that she was entitled to one-half of the conjugal property. The probate court granted her motion to intervene.
Blanquita Ang then filed a separate petition for a preliminary injunction in the same probate court to enjoin PCIBank from consolidating title over the foreclosed properties. Despite PCIBank’s objections and a motion for extension to file a responsive pleading, which the trial court denied, the court proceeded with the hearing on the injunction application. PCIBank’s counsel walked out in protest. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, issuing a writ to halt any acts enforcing the foreclosure. PCIBank challenged this order via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and affirmed the trial court’s issuance of the injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the probate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the court’s ancillary jurisdiction and the purpose of a preliminary injunction. A probate court, while primarily tasked with settling the estate, possesses ancillary jurisdiction to issue provisional remedies like injunctions when necessary to preserve the estate’s assets pending final determination of ownership issues. Blanquita Ang’s intervention raised a serious question regarding the validity of the mortgage over the conjugal property, alleging forgery and lack of consent. These allegations, if proven, could affect title to properties purportedly included in the estate.
The Court emphasized that the determination of ownership by a probate court in such a scenario is merely provisional, intended to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable damage to the estate pending a final resolution in a separate action. The issuance of the injunction was a precautionary measure to prevent PCIBank from consolidating ownership during the redemption period and while the validity of the mortgage was being contested. The grant or denial of an injunction rests on the sound discretion of the court, and absent a clear showing of capricious or whimsical exercise thereof, as was not present here, the appellate courts will not interfere. The Court of Appeals correctly found no grave abuse in the probate court’s order.