G.R. No. 167174; September 23, 2013.
SPOUSES CARMELITO and ANTONIA ALDOVER, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SUSANA AHORRO, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Siblings Tomas M. Reyes and Sidra M. Reyes and their father Alfredo Reyes (the Reyeses) were the registered owners of a 4,044-square meter lot covered by TCT No. PT-107508. On August 12, 1999, they obtained a loan from Antonia B. Aldover secured by a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over the property. Upon the Reyeses’ failure to pay, Aldover caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and emerged as the winning bidder at the auction sale. A Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor on September 2, 2002. Aldover then filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 71 (LRC Case No. R-6203), which was granted on August 26, 2003. Aldover also consolidated title, and TCT No. PT-122311 was issued in her name on December 17, 2003. The RTC issued a Writ of Possession on March 17, 2004.
The Branch Sheriff reported that he could not fully implement the writ because several other persons occupied portions of the lot, claiming ownership. These persons, the respondents, filed a separate Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Title, Reconveyance and Damages (Civil Case No. 69979) before RTC Pasig, Branch 268, against the petitioners, the Reyeses, the sheriff, and the Register of Deeds. They alleged they had been residing on the lot since the 1960s under lease contracts with the Reyeses and later purchased their respective portions, and that the petitioners were aware of these transactions. They claimed the REM was fictitious because the Reyeses were no longer owners of the entire property at its execution, rendering the mortgage and foreclosure sale null and void. Their prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was denied by Branch 268 on July 26, 2004, which stated it could not interfere with a coordinate court’s order.
Meanwhile, in LRC Case No. R-6203, Aldover filed a Motion for Special Order of Demolition. Branch 71 granted the motion in an Order dated August 9, 2004, directing the respondents and all persons deriving rights from them to vacate within 60 days. The respondents, claiming they were neither impleaded nor notified in LRC Case No. R-6203 and were thus not bound by the order, filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Injunction with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted their ancillary prayer for injunctive relief in a Resolution dated January 3, 2005, and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on February 10, 2005, enjoining the RTC from implementing its demolition order. The petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to annul these CA issuances.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the ancillary prayer for injunctive relief and issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the implementation of the RTC’s demolition order.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the assailed CA Resolution and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and reinstated the RTC’s Order for the issuance of a writ of demolition.
The Court held that a writ of possession is a ministerial function. As the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, Aldover is entitled to possession of the property as a matter of right, upon proper application and approval of the corresponding bond, and this right becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption period without a redemption being made. The consolidation of title in Aldover’s name affirmed her ownership and her right to possess the property. The respondents, who were not parties to the mortgage or the foreclosure proceedings, cannot defeat this right by a mere collateral attack in a separate action. Their claim of ownership, based on alleged sales from the Reyeses, constitutes a collateral attack on Aldover’s title, which is not permitted. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the proper remedy is a direct action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust. The pendency of the respondents’ separate action for annulment of title and reconveyance (Civil Case No. 69979) did not justify the injunction, as it did not constitute a prejudicial question that would suspend the proceedings for possession. The issue of possession could proceed independently of the question of ownership. Furthermore, the CA’s grant of injunctive relief interfered with the RTC’s ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession and demolition. The respondents failed to establish a clear legal right to the injunctive relief, as their claim of ownership was disputed and yet to be proven. The preliminary injunction issued by the CA was therefore improper.
