G.R. No. 146157 February 13, 2009
LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS INC.), Petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner La Campana obtained a foreign currency loan guaranteed by respondent DBP, secured by a real estate mortgage. Petitioner defaulted, prompting DBP to pay the creditor and subsequently institute extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The mortgaged properties were sold at public auction in 1972, with DBP as the highest bidder. Petitioner filed a complaint in 1986 (Civil Case No. Q-47948) seeking cancellation of the mortgage and release of titles, arguing that DBP lost its rights by failing to register the Certificates of Sale within ten years. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled for DBP on October 5, 1990, but reversed itself in an Order dated March 22, 1991. DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on November 3, 1994, decided in favor of DBP (CA-G.R. CV No. 34856), ordering La Campana to surrender possession of the properties and pay unlawfully collected rentals. Petitioner’s subsequent petitions to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 120257 and G.R. No. L-124107) were denied and became final. DBP then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution on January 7, 1997, to implement the 1994 CA Decision. Petitioner opposed, arguing the decision was incomplete for not specifying the rental amount and period, and that reconstitution and cancellation of the original titles rendered execution impossible. The RTC granted the motion on March 31, 1997, and modified its order on June 13, 1997, directing an accounting of rentals from May 1, 1977. Petitioner challenged this via certiorari in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 48773), which dismissed the petition on August 31, 2000. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 21, 2000.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and upholding the RTC Orders granting the writ of execution and directing an accounting of rentals, despite petitioner’s claims that the 1994 CA Decision was incomplete and its execution was rendered impossible by the reconstitution and cancellation of titles.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The 1994 CA Decision was final and executory, and its execution was a ministerial duty. The decision was not incomplete; it clearly ordered the surrender of possession of the properties and payment of unlawfully collected rentals. The period for accounting was determinable from the decision itself, starting from May 1, 1977 (one year after the annotation of the sheriff’s certificate of sale on April 30, 1976, when DBP became the absolute owner). The reconstitution and cancellation of titles did not render execution impossible, as the order pertained to the possession of the physical properties, not the certificates of title. The change in petitioner’s corporate name did not affect its liabilities. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ and ordering an accounting; it merely enforced the final judgment. The petition for certiorari before the CA was properly dismissed as petitioner failed to prove any grave abuse by the RTC.