G.R. No. 157644 - SPOUSES ERNESTO AND VICENTA TOPACIO, AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MARILOU TOPACIO-NARCISO, VS. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, a Certification of Sale was issued in favor of the respondent and registered with the Registry of Deeds. [4] On May 26, 1983, the respondent filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession [5] over the mortgaged property before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela City ( RTC ). In an Order [6] dated December 12, 1983, the RTC granted the petition, conditioned on the posting of a P100,000.00 bond. Upon posting of the required bond, the RTC issued, on February 16, 1984, a writ of possession, commanding the sheriff to place the respondent in possession of the property. The writ of possession was not implemented [7] because, on February 27, 1984, the petitioners, filed with the RTC, a petition to set aside the auction sale and the writ of possession (with application for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction). [8] In an Order dated February 28, 1984, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent and the Deputy Sheriff from implementing the writ of possession it previously issued. [9] After hearing, the RTC, issued on March 13, 1984, a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the respondent and the Provincial Sheriff to desist from implementing the writ of possession and to refrain from interfering with and disrupting the possession of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land. [10] Sometime in April 1984, the respondent filed with the RTC its Motion to Admit Answer with Opposition to the Petition to Set Aside Auction Sale and Writ of Possession with Motion to Dissolve or Lift Preliminary Injunction ( Answer ) which was granted on April 26, 1984. [11] On May 21, 1984, the petitioners filed their Reply thereto, praying that the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued be maintained. [12] More than two years after the filing of the Answer and the Reply, and after a series of postponements at the instance of both parties, then Presiding Judge Teresita D. Capulong issued an Order dated December 16, 1986, dismissing the respondent's petition for the issuance of a writ of possession on the ground of "failure to prosecute." [13] The Order reads in full: When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the oppositors [now petitioners], Atty. Constancio R. Gallamos, was present. Atty. Francisco Rivera [counsel for the respondent] was absent despite notice. Upon petition of the counsel for the oppositors, this case is hereby ordered dismissed for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED.