VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND BF HOMES, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, petitioner's `Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is granted and judgement is hereby rendered ordering respondents to execute and deliver to petitioner the Certificate of the Auction Sale of January 29, 1985, involving the properties sold therein, more particularly those described in Annex `C' of their Answer." (p. 87, Rollo.) On June 4, 1985, B.F. Homes filed an original complaint with the IAC pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. 129 praying for the annulment of the judgment, premised on the following: "x x x: (1) even before RCBC asked the sheriff to extra-judicially foreclose its mortgage on petitioner's properties, the SEC had already assumed exclusive jurisdiction over those assets, and (2) that there was extrinsic fraud in procuring the judgment because the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the mandamus case, respondent court did not acquire jurisdiction over it, and it was deprived of its right to be heard." ( CA Decision , p. 88, Rollo). On April 8, 1986, the IAC rendered a decision, setting aside the decision of the trial court, dismissing the mandamus case and suspending issuance to RCBC of new land titles, " until the resolution of case by SEC in Case No. 002693 ," disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, the judgment dated May 8, 1985 in Civil Case No. 10042 is hereby annulled and set aside and the case is hereby dismissed. In view of the admission of respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation that the sheriff's certificate of sale has been registered on BF Homes' TCT's . . . (here the TCTs were enumerated) the Register of Deeds for Pasay City is hereby ordered to suspend the issuance to the mortgagee-purchaser, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, of the owner's copies of the new land titles replacing them until the matter shall have been resolved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in SEC Case No. 002693. " (p. 257-260, Rollo; also pp. 832- 834, 213 SCRA 830 [1992]; Emphasis in the original.) On June 18, 1986, RCBC appealed the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now, back to its old revered name, the Court of Appeals) to this Court, arguing that: 1. Petitioner did not commit extrinsic fraud in excluding private respondent as party defendant in Special Civil Case No. 10042 as private respondent was not indispensable party thereto, its participation not being necessary for the full resolution of the issues raised in said case. 2. SEC Case No. 2693 cannot be invoked to suspend Special Civil Case No. 10042, and for that matter, the extra-judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage in petitioner's favor, as these do not constitute actions against private respondent contemplated under Section 6(c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A. 3. Even assuming arguendo that the extra-judicial sale constitute an action that may be suspended under Section 6(c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the basis for the suspension thereof did not exist so as to adversely affect the validity and regularity thereof. 4. The Re