GR 141297; (October, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141297 ; October 8, 2001
DOMINGO R. MANALO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, respondents.
FACTS
S. Villanueva Enterprises, represented by Therese Villanueva Vargas, obtained loans from PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank, secured by a mortgage over Vargas’s property in Pasay City. Following a default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the property at auction in 1984, and consolidated its title after the redemption period lapsed. Vargas’s subsequent legal actions to annul the mortgage and foreclosure were ultimately dismissed, with the Court of Appeals upholding their validity. In 1992, the bank petitioned for a writ of possession. During these proceedings, Vargas, despite having lost ownership, executed a deed of absolute sale over the property to Armando Angsico in 1992 and later leased a portion to petitioner Domingo Manalo in 1994. Angsico assigned his rights to Manalo in 1997. The trial court granted the bank’s petition for a writ of possession in 1998. Manalo moved to intervene, claiming rights derived from Vargas and Angsico, but his motion was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of petitioner Manalo’s motion to intervene in the proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is clear: a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court following the consolidation of title in the name of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure. The proceeding is summary and ex parte in nature. Intervention is not a matter of right in such a proceeding. For intervention to be allowed, the intervenor must have a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either party, or an interest against both. Here, Manalo’s claimed interest, derived from transactions with Vargas after the foreclosure and consolidation of title, is subordinate to the bank’s consolidated ownership. Vargas had no more legal title to sell or lease after the consolidation; thus, she could not convey any valid rights to Angsico or Manalo. Consequently, Manalo has no legal interest that would entitle him to intervene in the summary proceeding for the writ. His proper recourse is a separate action to assert any claims, not intervention. The Court also noted that Manalo had entered into a new lease with the bank itself, further undermining his claim of a right to intervene against it. The lower courts correctly denied the motion to intervene.