G.R. NO. 155673 - SPOUSES SALVADOR F. DE VERA AND FELIZA V. DE VERA, VS. HON. GUILLERMO P. AGLORO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC – BRANCH 83 MALOLOS, BULACAN AND BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that, after hearing, judgment be rendered: 1. Setting aside the Mortgage Loan Agreement and any/all contracts, accessory or subsidiary thereto; 2. Setting aside the foreclosure proceedings and the issuance of new title to the defendant Bank; 3. Allowing the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant Bank what is legal, just and equitable under the premises; 4. Sentencing defendant Bank to pay plaintiffs the following items of damages: a. At least P500,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages; b. At least P100,000.00 as moral damages; c. At least P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; d. 25% of total recovery as attorneys fees; e. Cost of suit. [9] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 109-M-2000 and was raffled to Branch 83 of the court. On February 23, 2000, the Bank filed an Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Possession with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as LRC Case No. P-97-2000. The case was raffled to Branch 83 of the court. The Bank impleaded the Spouses as respondents and prayed that after an ex parte hearing, an order be issued as follows: 1. Granting petitioner a writ of possession over the properties covered by TCT No. T-133862 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, together with all the improvements thereon; and 2. Ordering the Sheriff or any of his duly authorized deputies to immediately place petitioner in possession thereof. 3. Petitioner further prays for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises. [10] The trial court set the petition for hearing at 8:30 a.m. of August 16, 2000 at the Building of the Bulwagan ng Katarungan , Provincial Capitol Compound in Malolos, Bulacan. [11] When the petition was called for hearing on August 16, 2000, no oppositor appeared. Forthwith, the trial court authorized its Branch Clerk of Court to receive the evidence of the Bank ex parte , [12] and the Bank adduced its testimonial and documentary evidence ex parte on August 28, 2000. On September 8, 2000, the Spouses De Vera filed in LRC Case No. P-97-2000 an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings to await the resolution of Civil Case No. 109-M-2000 or for the consolidation of the two cases. The Spouses cited the rulings of this Court in Barican v. IAC [13] and Sulit v. Court of Appeals . [14] Opposing the motion, the Bank alleged that the pendency of Civil Case No. 109-M-2000 was not a bar to the petition for a writ of possession because the issuance of the said writ was ministerial on the part of the trial court. The petitioner cited the rulings of this Court in Ong v. Court of Appeals [15] and Vaca v. Court of Appeals . [16] In an Order [17] dated February 13, 2001, the trial court denied the motion of the Spouses. Citing the case of Vda. de Zaballero v. CA , [18] the trial court ruled that the purchaser of the foreclosed property, upon ex parte application and the posting of the required bond, has the right to acquire possession of the foreclosed property during the 12-month redemption