G.R. No. 124658 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, VS. HONORABLE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in consequence of our conclusion that petitioner was not a builder in good faith entitled to the right of reimbursement with the right of retention, the submission and prayer that the writ of possession issued in this case be annulled and set aside, should in view of the facts disclosed after hearing of this appellate court, be as it is hereby, rejected and denied. It follows that the court a quo may now proceed without further delay to implement the questioned writ of possession and take such other steps and proceedings consistent with this judgment. SO ORDERED . [3] The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed by the Supreme Court on September 2, 1988, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on February 15, 1989 for lack of merit. Pursuant to the affirmed decision of the Court of Appeals, the trial court issued an alias writ of execution and possession on August 8, 1989. The writ was served on Lumen Policarpio on September 22, 1989. Meanwhile, she filed a motion for reconsideration on September 13, 1989 which was subsequently denied. In February 1990, the implementation of the first alias writ of possession was ordered. When the life of the first alias writ of possession expired, Philtrust moved for the issuance of a second alias writ of possession. On October 30, 1990, the second alias writ of possession was received by Jose Policarpio, brother of the private respondent, at her residence on 1064 M. Naval Street, Navotas, Metro Manila. It was only on November 14, 1990, or after eleven (11) years and six (6) months, that Philtrust was finally placed in possession of the foreclosed properties, and thirty-one (31) years and two (2) months from the time the case for foreclosure proceeding was instituted in the Court of First Instance on September 29, 1959. Thereafter, Simeon Policarpio, Modesta Reyes and Iluminada "Lumen" Policarpio filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary mandatory injunction with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in ordering the premature implementation of the second alias writ of possession dated October 15, 1990 alleging that when the writ of possession was issued, the motion for reconsideration of the order of October 15, 1990 had not yet been resolved. A motion for intervention was filed by third party claimants Concordia Ysmael, Gladys Ysmael, and Leonila Policarpio. Another motion for intervention had been filed by Simeon Policarpio Shipyard and Shipbuilding Corporation and R.M. Dried Fish Product. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the petition saying that the Policarpios had been fully heard on the issues involved. As to the motions for intervention filed by third party claimants, the court ruled that the supposed intervenors are not really third party claimants but successors-in-interest of spouses Policarpio against whom the writ is likewise enforceable since the sale of the property to Simeon Policarpio Sh