GR L 24110; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24110. February 18, 1967.
LEONCIO BARRAMEDA, petitioner, vs. CARMEN GONTANG, RODOLFO GENERAL and the HONORABLE JUDGE RAFAEL CRUZ (Presiding Judge, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leoncio Barrameda was the registered owner of three parcels of land mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Due to his failure to pay the loan, the DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At the public auction on April 23, 1962, the DBP was the highest bidder. After Barrameda failed to redeem, the DBP consolidated ownership and obtained a new title. The DBP subsequently sold the property to respondents Carmen Gontang and Rodolfo General. To obtain possession, the DBP filed an ex parte petition in the Court of First Instance for a writ of possession, which was granted. An alias writ was issued and served on Barrameda, placing the DBP (represented by Gontang and General) in possession. However, Barrameda, through armed men, repeatedly attempted to re-enter the land and take the landowner’s share of the harvest. Consequently, Gontang and General filed a petition for preliminary injunction in the same court to restrain Barrameda from disturbing their possession. The court granted the injunction after hearing. Barrameda’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction order against the petitioner.
RULING
No. The respondent Judge acted within jurisdiction. The DBP, as the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, was entitled to a writ of possession upon confirmation of the sale, as ownership had vested in it. The ex parte petition for the writ effectively included Barrameda as an adverse occupant named therein, and the alias writ was duly served on him. Therefore, the DBP (and its successors-in-interest, the respondents) were lawfully placed in possession. Given that Barrameda’s repeated attempts to intrude and forcibly take harvests constituted intermittent acts threatening irreparable injury, the issuance of a preliminary injunction to protect the respondents’ possession was proper and in accordance with precedent (Rustia vs. Franco). The petition is dismissed.