G.R. No. 233127. July 10, 2023.
Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co., Petitioner, vs. Novelita Labrador and Philippians Academy of Parañaque City, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Novelita Labrador obtained a loan from Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation, secured by a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land. Upon Labrador’s default, Chinatrust extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At the public auction, petitioner Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. was the highest bidder. After Labrador failed to redeem the properties within the one-year period, petitioner consolidated its ownership and new titles were issued in its name. Petitioner then filed an Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Co-respondent Philippians Academy of Parañaque City filed a Comment/Opposition, claiming it was the real owner of the properties by virtue of a Declaration of Trust Agreement with Labrador, and later filed a Counter-Petition. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Counter-Petition. The RTC issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the ex parte petition for writ of possession, ruling that the existence of the trust agreement created an adversarial dispute that needed to be resolved in a proper action. Petitioner appealed this Order to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the appeal outright, ruling that the RTC Order was an interlocutory order (denying a motion to dismiss) and thus not appealable under Rule 41; the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it assailed an interlocutory order and was thus an improper remedy.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC Order dated December 10, 2012, which dismissed the Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, was a final order, not an interlocutory one. A final order terminates the proceedings, leaving nothing more for the court to do regarding the merits of the case. Here, the RTC Order completely disposed of the ex parte petition by dismissing it on the merits, concluding that an adversarial dispute existed due to the trust agreement. No further proceedings were contemplated for the ex parte petition itself. Therefore, the order was final and appealable. Since the CA dismissed the appeal on a purely procedural ground, the Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the substantive merits of the case. On the merits, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in dismissing the ex parte petition. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale who has consolidated title is a ministerial duty of the court. The alleged Declaration of Trust Agreement invoked by Philippians Academy did not constitute a legal basis to deny the writ. Philippians Academy was not a party to the mortgage and its claim, based on an unregistered instrument, could not prevail over petitioner’s consolidated title acquired in good faith at a public auction. The proper recourse for Philippians Academy was to file a separate action to assert its claim, not to oppose the ministerial issuance of the writ. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and directed the RTC to issue the writ of possession in favor of petitioner.