G.R. No. 188931 - JUANITO M. GOPIAO, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Intervention and to Recall and/or Stop the Enforcement/Implementation of the Writ of Possession is DENIED for lack of merit. [9] When the RTC denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the above-quoted decision, petitioner elevated his claim to the CA via petition for certiorari alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction. On March 10, 2009, however, the CA dismissed said petition in the following wise: In this case, the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners Motion for Intervention and to Recall and/or Stop the Enforcement/Implementation of the Writ of Possession. To substantiate his claim of ownership over the subject properties, petitioner offered in evidence an un-notarized and unregistered deed of sale. As pointed out by the private respondent bank in its Comment, petitioner even failed to prove the due execution and authenticity of the said deed of absolute sale. On the other hand, the respondent bank was a mortgagee in good faith. It has shown that prior to the approval of the loan application of the borrowers, it checked the records of the properties offered as collaterals at the Registry of Deeds and verified that the titles were clean. Moreover, it inspected the premises and found no occupants. Thus, it approved the loan secured by the mortgage over the subject properties which they caused to be registered. When the borrowers defaulted, it foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the property at the public auction and registered the Certificate of Sale on October 1, 1998. The real properties are now covered by TCT No. 489198-R, TCT No. 489199-R and TCT No. 489200-R registered in its name. Thus, a writ of possession was issued in its favor. [10] Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was likewise subsequently denied in a CA Resolution [11] dated May 29, 2009. Hence, this petition filed by petitioners raising the following errors: I. THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RTC COMMITTED NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONERS INTERVENTION EVEN IF THE RTC VIOLATED EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE. II. THE CA ERRED IN RULING ON A NON-ISSUE: THE ALLEGED GOOD FAITH OF RESPONDENT AS A MORTGAGEE. III. THE CA ERRED IN RULING ON THE EXISTENCE OF DOUBLE SALE INSTEAD OF THE PREFERRED RIGHT OF PETITIONER. Petitioner posits that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it failed to recognize his right as a third party adverse possessor. He explains that while the issuance of a writ of possession after a foreclosure sale is ministerial, it ceases to be a ministerial duty of the court if there is a third party holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor. [12] He claims that since he has been in possession of the subject properties by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed by the Spouses Legaspi in his favor, the RTC exceeded its powers in denying its intervention. In support of his claim, petitioner cited rulings of this Cou