G.R. No. 121104 ; November 27, 2000
SPOUSES GERARDO and CELESTINA PAHIMUTANG, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL D. VICTORIO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141, BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK and MR. EDGARDO C. CRUZ, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Pahimutang obtained a loan from respondent Banco Filipino, secured by a mortgage on a house and lot they purchased. After defaulting on payments, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The bank was the highest bidder at the auction sale, and upon the petitioners’ failure to redeem, a Certificate of Sale was registered, and title was consolidated in the bank’s name. The bank then successfully secured a writ of possession from the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Petitioners challenged this writ via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially annulled it. However, upon the bank’s appeal, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 68878 reversed the CA and upheld the writ of possession, a decision which became final and executory in 1992.
Subsequently, as the writ had not been executed, Banco Filipino sought and was granted a second alias writ of possession by the RTC in 1994. Instead of complying, petitioners filed another petition for certiorari with the CA, seeking to annul the alias writ. They argued the foreclosure was void due to alleged defects in notice and that they were protected by the Realty Installment Buyers’ Protection Act (RA 6552). The CA denied their petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s issuance of the second alias writ of possession and in ruling that the petitioners’ claims were barred by res judicata.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The core legal logic rests on the doctrine of res judicata, specifically “bar by prior judgment.” The validity of the writ of possession—the very relief being contested again—had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court’s final and executory decision in G.R. No. 68878 . That prior case involved identical parties and the same fundamental issue regarding the bank’s right to possession following the foreclosure. The Court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.
The petitioners’ attempt to re-litigate the matter by raising ancillary issues, such as the alleged invalidity of the foreclosure sale due to defective notice and the inapplicability of RA 6552 (which the CA correctly found did not cover their transaction), was impermissible. These defenses could have and should have been raised in the prior proceedings that culminated in the final judgment in G.R. No. 68878 . The Court found no merit in the claim of extrinsic fraud or abuse of discretion, noting that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial duty once the redemption period expires. The delay in execution was attributable to the petitioners’ own persistent legal maneuvers. Thus, the principle of res judicata forbids re-examination, and the alias writ was properly issued to enforce the long-overdue final judgment.