G.R. NO. 161029 - SPRINGSUN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, VS. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE, NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO AND DOMINGO ENRIQUEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TCT Nos. (289237) S-6135, (289236) S-35855 and S-72244 in the name of Victoria Homes were cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT Nos. 120541, [10] 120542 [11] and 123872, [12] were issued in the name of petitioner. [13] Subsequently, petitioner mortgaged to Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) the three lots as security for its various loans amounting to P11,545,000.00. When petitioner failed to pay its loans, the mortgage was foreclosed extra-judicially. At the public auction sale, the lots were sold to Banco Filipino, being the highest bidder. On December 13, 1994, petitioner filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 80, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila several complaints for forcible entry against the farm helpers [14] of respondents, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 2858 to 2873. The complaints, identically worded except for their titles and docket numbers, alleged inter alia that the defendants therein have occupied the lots by strategy and stealth, thereby depriving petitioner of its right of possession; and that despite its demand, they refused to vacate the lots. In their common answer to the complaint, the defendants averred that they and respondents, together with their families, have been in possession of the lots as tenants and that they and respondents have been tilling and planting rice and other agricultural crops thereon since many years ago up to the present. Meanwhile, having learned of the forcible entry cases against their farm helpers, respondents, on March 7, 1995, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, Muntinlupa (now Muntinlupa City), Metro Manila, a complaint against petitioner and Banco Filipino, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-020. [15] The complaint, although captioned For: Prohibition/Certiorari, Reconveyance/Redemption, Damages, Injunction with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, is actually an action for redemption. Respondents alleged in their complaint that since 1967, they have been in continuous peaceful possession of the lots as tenants of Victoria Homes. However, without their knowledge, Victoria Homes sold the lots to petitioner. In order to prevent them from exercising their right of redemption, petitioner mortgaged the lots to Banco Filipino. In the early part of 1994, petitioner, Banco Filipino and its sister company, Pilar Development Corporation, called respondents to a conference wherein petitioner pledged to pay each of them P2,000,000.00 if they will not exercise their right of redemption. However, petitioner failed to comply with its commitment which, apparently, was a mere scheme to deprive them of their right of redemption. In fact, petitioner filed with the MeTC complaints for forcible entry against their (respondents) farm helpers. They thus prayed inter alia that pending the resolution of their complaint, the RTC enjoin the MeTC from proceeding with the forcible entry cases and that after trial, judgment be rendered authorizin