G.R. No. 123050 January 20, 1999
SUICO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, SPS. ESMERALDO and ELIZABETH SUICO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DEVELOPMENT BANK INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Suico Industrial Corporation, represented by Esmeraldo Suico, secured a loan of P2,500,000.00 from respondent Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP Bank) on January 19, 1987, secured by a mortgage on two real properties covered by TCT Nos. 18324 and 23116 owned by petitioner spouses. In 1991, petitioners obtained a second loan of P2,000,000.00, secured by the same properties. For failure to pay the balance of P3,900,000.00 as of 1993, respondent PDCP Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, was adjudged the highest bidder, and a Certificate of Sale was issued on February 29, 1993. Petitioners failed to redeem the properties. After the redemption period, ownership was consolidated and new titles were issued in the name of respondent PDCP Bank. On November 16, 1994, respondent PDCP Bank filed an “Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession” with the RTC of Mandaue City, Branch 28, which was granted on December 8, 1994, and a writ of possession was issued on December 15, 1994. However, on December 9, 1994, petitioners filed a “Complaint for Specific Performance, Injunction and Damages” before the RTC of Mandaue City, Branch 56, seeking to enjoin respondent PDCP Bank from selling the properties and from taking physical possession. On January 17, 1995, RTC Branch 56 granted the injunction, finding based on petitioner Esmeraldo Suico’s testimony that there was an arrangement with former bank officers for petitioners to intentionally default and later repurchase the property for P5,000,000.00, and deferred resolution on a motion to dismiss. A Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued on January 18, 1995. Respondent PDCP Bank filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which ruled on August 28, 1995, that RTC Branch 56 exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the injunction against the enforcement of the writ of possession granted by RTC Branch 28.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of possession issued by another branch (Branch 28) of the same court.

RULING

Yes. The Court of Appeals ruled that RTC Branch 56 exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the writ of injunction against the enforcement of the writ of possession granted by RTC Branch 28. The appellate court held that it is a well-settled rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by injunction. Furthermore, the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a foreclosure sale after the expiration of the redemption period is a ministerial duty of the court. The buyer becomes the absolute owner of the property if not redeemed and is entitled to possession; upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial duty. Therefore, it was improper for RTC Branch 56 to stay the implementation of the writ of possession issued by RTC Branch 28.