G.R. No. 217860, January 29, 2024
Spouses Leonardo Lontoc and Nancy Lontoc, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Roselie Tiglao and Tomas Tiglao, Jr., Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for nullification of a deed of absolute sale filed by respondents Spouses Tiglao against petitioners Spouses Lontoc. On December 20, 1999, the RTC (Branch 158, Pasig) declared the sale an equitable mortgage and gave Spouses Tiglao three months from finality to redeem the property for PHP 300,000. This decision was modified by the CA on December 17, 2004, affirming the equitable mortgage declaration and redemption order but setting aside an additional monetary award. The Supreme Court denied Spouses Lontoc’s appeal, and the CA decision became final on January 18, 2006.
Spouses Tiglao failed to redeem. Consequently, Spouses Lontoc filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage. On February 17, 2011, the RTC (Branch 153, Pasig) rendered a Decision declaring the property foreclosed, ordering Spouses Tiglao to pay PHP 60,000 in attorney’s fees, and ordering them to pay the costs. This decision did not specify the mortgage debt amount or a period for payment. It became final.
Spouses Tiglao then filed a Motion for Execution, pointing out the decision’s silence on the amount and manner of execution and praying for a writ ordering them to pay PHP 360,000 within 90 days. Spouses Lontoc did not object. The RTC granted the motion and issued a Writ of Execution on July 8, 2011, ordering Spouses Tiglao to pay PHP 360,000 within 120 days from the decision’s finality, failing which the property would be sold at auction. Spouses Tiglao paid PHP 360,000 on July 22, 2011.
Spouses Lontoc filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Partial Clarification, arguing the payment period had lapsed under the 1999 decision and the writ violated immutability of judgment. The RTC denied this motion. Spouses Tiglao then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession. However, the RTC, in an Order dated November 28, 2011, denied the motion, declared the July 8, 2011 Writ of Execution null and void, directed the issuance of a new writ for a public auction, and ordered Spouses Tiglao to collect back PHP 300,000 of their payment (releasing only the PHP 60,000 attorney’s fees to Spouses Lontoc). A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on March 19, 2012.
Spouses Tiglao filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA. The CA granted the petition, set aside the RTC’s November 28, 2011 and March 19, 2012 Orders, and directed the RTC to issue a writ of possession to Spouses Tiglao and conduct the rest of the foreclosure proceedings. Spouses Lontoc elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153 committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession and in declaring the Writ of Execution null and void.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the February 17, 2011 Decision of the RTC, Branch 153 was incomplete and invalid as a judgment of foreclosure for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 68, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. A valid judgment of foreclosure must order the defendant to pay the amount due, including interest and costs, within a period of not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from the entry of judgment. The February 17, 2011 Decision merely declared the property foreclosed and awarded attorney’s fees and costs; it did not order the payment of the mortgage debt or specify a period for payment. Consequently, it could not be the subject of execution. The subsequent Writ of Execution issued on July 8, 2011, which supplied the missing terms (the amount of PHP 360,000 and a 120-day period), was a nullity because it effectively modified the final and executory judgment, violating the doctrine of immutability of judgments. Since the judgment was incomplete, the payment made by Spouses Tiglao pursuant to the void writ was ineffectual. The RTC, Branch 153 correctly declared the writ null and void and ordered the return of the payment. However, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering a new writ for a public auction sale, as there was no valid judgment to execute. The proper remedy was for Spouses Lontoc to seek an amendment or supplementation of the incomplete judgment before it became final, which they did not do. The CA correctly directed the RTC to conduct the rest of the foreclosure proceedings in accordance with the Rules, implying the need for further proceedings to establish a valid, executable judgment.