GR 138567; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138567 . March 04, 2005
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES WILFREDO GATAL and AZUCENA GATAL, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Wilfredo and Azucena Gatal obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon default, DBP foreclosed the mortgage, consolidated title, and later offered the property for a negotiated sale. The Gatal spouses submitted a bid, but a higher offer from Jimmy Torrefranca was accepted. The Gatal spouses then filed a complaint for injunction (Civil Case No. 5996) before the RTC, Branch 4, Tagbilaran City, seeking to declare the sale to Torrefranca void and to enforce a claimed right of pre-emption, and obtained a preliminary injunction.
Subsequently, DBP filed a separate petition for the issuance of a writ of possession (Civil Case No. 6097) before RTC, Branch 47 of the same court, based on its consolidated ownership from the foreclosure sale. The Gatal spouses moved to dismiss this petition on the ground of litis pendentia, arguing the first case involved the same parties and subject matter. Branch 47 granted the motion and dismissed the writ of possession petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of Civil Case No. 6097 (the petition for a writ of possession) on the ground of litis pendentia.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, ruling that litis pendentia was not present. For litis pendentia to apply, there must be: (1) identity of parties; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought; and (3) a situation where the judgment in the first case would be determinative of the second. While the parties and property were the same, the causes of action and reliefs sought were fundamentally different.
Civil Case No. 5996 was an ordinary action for injunction filed by the Gatal spouses, seeking to invalidate a subsequent sale and enforce an alleged right of pre-emption. In contrast, Civil Case No. 6097 was a special proceeding for a writ of possession, a summary remedy filed by DBP as the confirmed foreclosure sale purchaser. The right to a writ of possession is ministerial upon the filing of the proper petition and the expiration of the redemption period; it is not contingent on the resolution of an independent action questioning the validity of the sale. The relief in the first case (injunction) would not determinatively resolve the second (issuance of the writ), as the writ proceeds from DBP’s consolidated title, irrespective of the pending challenge to the negotiated sale. Therefore, the dismissal on the ground of litis pendentia was incorrect.