G.R. No. 203949 - SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, VS. JUAN G. VELASQUEZ.[G.R. No. 205071] JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, VS. SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TCT No. S-99286 was cancelled and replaced with TCT No. 8460 [3] in the name of Allied Bank. [4] On June 11, 2003, Allied Bank agreed to sell back the foreclosed property to the Spouses Gallent for P4 Million, as evidenced by an Agreement to Sell, [5] wherein the Spouses Gallent paid a down payment of P3.5 Million, evidenced by an Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 0990687-A [6] dated March 12, 2003, and the balance thereof was payable in 12 monthly amortizations. It was also stipulated that the Spouses Gallent would be allowed to keep the possession of the subject property as tenants or lessees of Allied Bank. [7] Due to financial difficulties, sometime in October 2003, the Spouses Gallent sought the help of their close family friend, Juan Velasquez (Velasquez), to help them settle their remaining monthly amortizations. As an inducement, they agreed that Velasquez would have the subject property registered under his name until they have repaid him. [8] On October 24, 2003, the Spouses Gallent executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights [9] whereby they assigned to Velasquez all their rights, interests, and obligations under their Agreement to Sell with Allied Bank. Velasquez paid Allied Bank the remaining balance amounting to P216,635.97, evidenced by O.R. No. 0006352. [10] On November 5, 2003, Allied Bank and Velasquez executed a Deed of Absolute Sale [11] over the subject property for the price of P4 Million, wherein George himself signed as an instrumental witness. [12] However, the said instrument was not registered. Subsequently, Velasquez caused another Deed of Sale [13] dated November 19, 2003, over the subject property which showed a lower selling price of P1.2 Million to be registered, purportedly for tax purposes. On November 28, 2003, TCT No. 11814 [14] was issued under the name of Velasquez to replace TCT No. 8460. After more than four years, or on June 27, 2008, Velasquez sent a demand letter [15] to the Spouses Gallent to vacate the subject property, but the latter refused to do so. On July 6, 2009, Velasquez filed an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession, docketed as LRC Case No. 09-055, in the RTC of Muntinlupa City. [16] The Spouses Gallent sought to dismiss the petition by filing Consolidated Motions for Leave to Intervene and to Dismiss Petition [17] on January 14, 2010. On February 12, 2010, the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, issued an Order [18] denying the Spouses Gallent's consolidated motions, viz : The issuance of the writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court upon filing of the proper application and proof of title and by its nature does not require notice upon persons interested in the subject properties. By virtue of the sale of the properties involved, [Velasquez] became the new owner of the lots entitled to all rights and interests its predecessor [Allied Bank] had therein, including the right to file an application for writ of possession. The court therefore finds the petition to