G.R. No. 121943 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND LOLITA ORDINARIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, upon posting by the petitioner China Banking Corporation of the requisite bond in the amount of P792,000.00, let a writ of possession be issued commanding the placing in possession of said petitioner over those parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 7289, 7290, 7291, 7613, 7614, 7615, 7617, 7618, 7621, 7622, 7623, 7624, 7625, 7626, 7627, 7628, 7629, 7630, 7631, 7632, 7633, 7634, 7635, 7636, 7637 , 7638, 7639, 7640, 7641, 7642, 7643, 7644, 7645, 7646, 7647, 7648, 7649, 7650, 7651, 7652, 7653, 7654, 7655, 7656, and 7657, all of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, together with all the improvements thereon, ejecting therefrom Jesus V. Garcia and all persons claiming right under him. On July 19, 1991, petitioner posted the required surety bond which was approved by the RTC. On August 16, 1991, spouses Oscar and Lolita Ordinario, herein respondents, filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the parcel of land with its improvement covered by TCT No. 7637 be excluded from the above order. They alleged, among others, that they are indispensable parties in the case, claiming that in November 1989, they purchased the land covered by TCT No. 7637 on which was constructed their townhouse; that the petition for a writ of possession does not bind them for lack of notice; that petitioner bank should have filed an action for recovery of possession, not an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession since there are parties in actual possession of the lots involved; that they filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for the delivery of title and damages against petitioner bank, Jesus Garcia and TransAmerican; and that the mortgage foreclosure cannot prevail over their superior right as legitimate buyers of the area covered by TCT No. 7637. On August 23, 1991, petitioner bank filed its opposition to respondents motion for reconsideration. It alleged that the trial court, acting as a land registration court with limited jurisdiction, cannot pass upon the merits of respondents motion; that respondents should have filed a separate action; that the assailed order dated April 10, 1991 directing the issuance of a writ of possession had become final; and that the proceedings, being in rem , bind herein respondents. On September 21, 1992, the trial court issued an order denying respondents motion for reconsideration. On appeal by respondents, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision dated March 20, 1995, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the appealed order dated September 21, 1992 of the lower court in LRC Case No. Q-4534 is SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is issued by the Court granting movants-appellants motion for reconsideration to the effect of excluding from the lower courts orders dated April 10, 1991 and September 21, 1992, movants-appellants property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7637 as the same property should not have been covered by the w