G.R. No. 196040 - FE H. OKABE, VS. ERNESTO A. SATURNINO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, and in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, the instant petition [is] hereby GRANTED. Let the corresponding Writ be issued in favor of the herein petitioner Fe H. Okabe to place her in possession of the subject property. No bond is required to be posted by petitioner Fe H. Okabe, she, being the successor-in-interest of Philippine National Bank, the purchaser in the foreclosure sale, which had consolidated that title on the subject property in its name prior to the herein petitioner. Furnish copies of this Decision to the parties and their respective counsels. SO ORDERED . [17] Respondent filed a motion to set aside the said Decision, but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order [18] dated April 27, 2010. On May 13, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment. On July 8, 2010, the RTC issued an Order [19] granting the motion. On even date, the branch clerk of court issued a Writ of Possession [20] addressed to the Sheriff ordering the latter to place petitioner in possession of the subject property. On July 14, 2010, the Sheriff, together with petitioner, tried to cause the service of the notice to vacate upon the respondent, but the property was already abandoned by its occupants. The Sheriff, with the assistance of barangay officials, thus, posted the notice to vacate together with the writ of possession in front of the gate of the subject property. [21] On July 20, 2010, the Sheriff, the petitioner, and the barangay officials returned to the property to cause the implementation of the writ of possession. After finding that no one was occupying the property, the Sheriff turned over possession of the subject property to the petitioner free and clear of occupants and personal property. [22] In the proceedings before the CA, respondent filed a Motion to Admit Herein Memorandum of Authorities in Amplification/Support of the Position of Petitioner in this Case and Reiterating Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injuction. [23] In the said motion, respondent alleged that the RTC was about to issue the writ of possession prayed for by the petitioner and that a TRO was necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury which respondent may suffer if removed from possession of the property in question. On July 19, 2010, the CA issued a Resolution [24] granting the issuance of a TRO in favor of the respondent and commanding petitioner and the RTC to refrain from committing any acts relative to the proceedings before it upon the posting of a bond. In a Manifestation [25] dated July 21, 2010 the RTC Presiding Judge informed the CA that as much as the court would like to comply with its directive, it can no longer do so because the writ of possession had already been implemented by the Branch Sheriff on July 20, 2010. On September 24, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed Decision which granted respondents petition and vacated the challenged orders of