G.R. No. 181268 , August 15, 2016
MILAGROS HERNANDEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FE HERNANDEZ-ARCEO, PETITIONER, VS. EDWINA C. OCAMPO, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, FELICITAS R. MENDOZA, METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, THE SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINAN, LAGUNA, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Milagros Hernandez alleges she purchased two parcels of land in 1985 and has been in continuous possession since. She entrusted the registration to her son-in-law, who died without transferring the titles to her name. Unaware, Hernandez resided abroad. In 2002, she discovered the lots were registered in the names of respondents Edwina Ocampo and Felicitas Mendoza via a 1989 deed of sale from the same previous owner. These lots were subsequently mortgaged to respondent banks Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank). After the mortgages were extrajudicially foreclosed, the banks obtained writs of possession.
To prevent the enforcement of these writs and the eviction of her family, Hernandez filed a complaint for annulment of titles and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty after the redemption period and that Hernandez’s claim of fraud required full trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Hernandez failed to establish a clear legal right for injunctive relief.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of Hernandez’s application for a TRO or preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the writs of possession issued to the respondent banks.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the nature of a writ of possession and the requisites for a preliminary injunction. A writ of possession is a ministerial issuance in favor of a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale after the expiration of the redemption period, pursuant to Act No. 3135 . The duty of the court to issue it is mandatory and generally non-discretionary. The pendency of a separate action for annulment of title does not, by itself, bar its issuance or execution.
For a preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must prove a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Hernandez’s claim of ownership, based on a prior unregistered deed of sale and possession, is contested by the registered titles in the names of Ocampo and Mendoza and the subsequent derivative titles of the banks as purchasers in the foreclosure sale. The Torrens system accords primacy to the certificate of title. Since Hernandez’s claim of ownership is precisely the central issue in the main annulment case, it remains unproven and unsettled. Therefore, she failed to demonstrate the requisite clear legal right that is essential for the extraordinary remedy of injunction. The courts correctly held that the determination of a better right must await the full trial on the merits of the main case.