G.R. NO. 160479 - SPOUSES GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA AND REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND EQUITABLE PCIBANK.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, a Certificate of Sale [4] over the property was issued in favor of the private respondent. This was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on November 22, 1999. [5] Following the expiry date of the redemption period without the petitioners having exercised their right to redeem the property, the private respondent consolidated its ownership over the subject property. [6] As a consequence, the Registry of Deeds issued TCT No. N-221650 [7] in the name of the private respondent, canceling the petitioners' former title. The petitioners filed a complaint against the private respondent and the sheriffs with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the declaration of the nullity of the promissory note, real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale and damages with a plea for injunctive relief for the suspension redemption period. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-34094. [8] Meanwhile, the private respondent demanded that the petitioners vacate and surrender possession of the subject property, but the latter refused to do so. This compelled the private respondent to file an Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, [9] docketed as LRC Case No. Q-14150(01) also with the Quezon City RTC. Instead of acting on the petition and receiving the evidence of the private respondent ex parte, as mandated by Act No. 3135, as amended, the RTC set the case for hearing at 8:30 a.m. of August 30, 2001, and ordered that a copy of the petition be served on the petitioners. [10] The latter filed their Answer alleging that (1) the private respondent failed to incorporate a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping in its petition; and (2) the petition was abated by the pendency of their complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-34094 involving the non-payment of their mortgage obligation, the validity of the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property and their failure to redeem the same. The petitioners prayed that the trial court dismiss the petition outright. [11] They appended to their answer a copy of their amended and supplemental complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-34094. The trial court conducted a hearing of the petition during which the petitioners and the private respondent adduced their respective evidence. On February 22, 2002, the trial court rendered a Decision in LRC Case No. Q-14150(01) granting the petition, thus: WHEREFORE, the Court holds that the Instant Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession is meritorious and should be granted. Let a writ of possession be issued in favor of the petitioner and directing the Respondents Sps. Godofredo and Remedios Arquiza and all persons claiming rights and interest under them to vacate the premises and place the petitioner in possession thereof. The petitioner Equitable PCIBank is directed to coordinate with the Branch Clerk of Court, this Court, for the expeditious issuance and implementation of the Writ of Possession. SO ORDERED.