RAQUEL Q.

CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES
#Credittransactionscase – 20130923 – Aldover, et. al. v. CA, et. al. - CANDELARIA

G.R. No. 167174, September 23, 2013

SPOUSES CARMELITO and ANTONIA ALDOVER, et. al., Petitioner,
vs.
The COURT OF APPEALS, et.al., Respondents.

G.R. No. 167174, September 23, 2013

SPOUSES CARMELITO and ANTONIA ALDOVER, et. al., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, et. al., Respondent.

Case Notes:

 This case covers Article 2131 of the Civil Code which provides that, “the form, extent
and consequences of mortgage, both as to its constitution, modification and
extinguishment, and as to matters not included in this Chapter, shall be governed by the
provisions of the Mortgage Law and of the Land Registration Law.

Decree (P.D.) No. 38519—the law intended specifically to govern mortgage

foreclosures initiated by government-owned financial institutions

 The case involves the following issues:

- Whether Section 4 of P.D. No. 385, allowing foreclosure proceedings initiated by

GFIs to continue until judgment becomes final and executory, without a restraining
order, temporary or permanent injunction against it being issued, should not be
construed as absolute or without exception. - The Supreme Court declared it to be
not absolute and without exception, when the parcel of land is occupied by a party
other than the judgment debtor.
- The proper procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the nature of
the said adverse possession before it issues a writ of possession.
- This is because a third party, who is not privy to the debtor, is protected by law.
- Such third party, may be ejected from the premises only after he has been given an
opportunity to be heard, to comply with the time honoured principle of due process.

 And
- That the obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession in favour of the
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial, once it

appears that there is a third party who is in possession of the property claiming a
right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor.

 Others:
- Notably, the Civil Code protects the actual possessor of a property, to wit:

- Art. 433.Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable

presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process
for the recovery of the property.

- one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by another must

bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term
"judicial process" could mean no less than an ejectment suit or
reivindicatory action, in which the ownership claims of the contending
parties may be properly heard and adjudicated.

- Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, the possession of a

mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in the extrajudicial
foreclosure, unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely
vis-à-vis the judgment debtor

- Philippine National Bank v. Adil21 that once the property of a debtor is

foreclosed and sold to a GFI, it would be mandatory for the court to place
the GFI in the possession and control of the property—pursuant to Section
4 of P.D. No. 385—this rule should not be construed as absolute or without
exception.

- Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court,27 in which we ruled that the

obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser
in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial, once it appears
that there is a third party who is in possession of the property and is
claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor.

Words:

 Privy- a person having a part or interest in any action, matter, or thing.

DECISION
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Certiorari36 filed under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to
annul: (i) the January 3, 2005
Resolution37 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363, which granted
herein respondents’ ancillary prayer for
injunctive relief: and (ii) the February 10,
2005 Writ of Preliminary
Injunction38 issued pursuant thereto. Said
writ enjoined the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City from
implementing its August 9, 2004
Order39 directing the issuance of a Writ of
Demolition against the respondents.

Factual Antecedents

Siblings Tomas M. Reyes and Sidra M.

Reyes and their father Alfredo Reyes (the
Reyeses) were the registered owners of a
4.044-square meter lot, (TCT) No. PT-
107508.40 On August 12, 1999, they
obtained a loan from AntoniaB. Aldover
(Aldover) secured by a Real Estate
Mortgage (REM)41 over the said property.

When the Reyeses failed to pay, Aldover

caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage. At the foreclosure sale
conducted, Aldover emerged as the
winning bidder. A Certificate of Sale was
issued in her favor which was annotated
at the back of TCT No. PT-107508 on
September 2, 2002.42

Thereafter, Aldover filed with the RTC of

Pasig City a verified Petition for the
Issuance of a Writ of Possession docketed
as LRC Case No. R-6203.43 On August 26,
2003, Branch 71 of the RTC of Pasig City
issued a Decision44 granting Aldover’s
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Petition for Issuance of a Writ of

Possession subject to the posting of a
bond.

On December 12, 2003, the Reyeses filed

a Motion to Recall and Lift Issuance of
Writ of Possession45 claiming, among
others, that the mortgage and the auction
sale of property are both null and void as
the mortgagee (Aldover) was not armed
with a special power of attorney to
foreclose the mortgaged property
extrajudicially. This drew Aldover’s
Opposition46 where she also prayed for
the issuance of the writ sans the requisite
bond as the property was not redeemed
within the one-year redemption period.

In the meantime, Aldover also caused the

consolidation of title over the foreclosed
property in her name. On December 17,
2003, TCT No. PT-107508was cancelled
and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. PT-
12231147 was issued in Aldover’s name.

On March 17, 2004, Branch 71 issued an

Order48 denying the Reyeses’ Motion to
Recall and granting Aldover’s motion to
dispense with the posting of a bond. On
the same date, a Writ of Possession49 was
issued directing the Branch Sheriff to
place Aldover in possession of subject lot.

In compliance with the writ, the Branch

Sheriff issued a Notice to Vacate50 dated
April 1, 2004. Then on April 23, 2004, he
issued a Sheriff’s Partial
Report51 informing the court that he
cannot fully implement the writ because
there are several other persons who
occupy portions of subject lot claiming to
be the owners thereof.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

On May 17, 2004, respondents filed

before the RTC of Pasig City a Complaint
for Declaration of Nullity of Documents
and Title, Reconveyance and Damages
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction52 against Aldover and her
husband Carmelito (petitioners), the
Reyeses, the Branch Sheriff, and the
Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City. In said
Complaint docketed as Civil Case No.
69979 and raffled to Branch 268 of said
court, respondents alleged that they have
been residing in the same lot subject of
LRC Case No. R-6203 since the 1960’s by
virtue of lease contracts wherein they
were allowed by the Reyeses to build
their houses. Subsequently, their
occupation became in the concept of
owners after the Reyeses sold to them
portions of the lot they respectively
occupy. Respondents insisted that
petitioners were aware of the lease and
subsequent sale. Respondents also
claimed that the REM is a fictitious
transaction because at the time of its
execution the Reyeses were no longer the
owners of the entire property subject
thereof. Hence, the mortgage as well as
the subsequent foreclosure sale is null
and void.

Respondents sought the issuance of a

Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO)and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction to immediately restrain
petitioners from further committing acts
of dispossession and prayed for the
cancellation of TCT No. PT-122311. On
July 5, 2004, however, they filed a Motion
to Admit Attached Amended Complaint
as a matter of right (with prayer for
withdrawal of TRO and injunction).53
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

On July 26, 2004, Branch 268 issued an

Order 54 denying respondents’ prayer for
TRO on the ground that it cannot
interfere with the order of a coordinate
court. This was followed by an
Order55 dated August 27, 2004 granting
respondents’ Motion to Admit and
admitting respondents’ Amended
Complaint where they withdrew their
ancillary prayer for injunctive relief.

Meanwhile, in LRC Case No. R-6203, in

view of the Sheriff’s Partial Report,
Aldover filed a Motion for Special Order
of Demolition.56 Branch 71granted the
Motion in an Order57 dated August 9,
2004, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,

the Motion for Special Order of
Demolition is hereby GRANTED. Let a writ
issue.

The respondents and all other persons

deriving rights from them are given sixty
(60) days from receipt of this Order to
vacate the premises.

SO ORDERED.58

On September 14, 2004, respondents

filed before the CA a Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition, Injunction with
prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction59 against the
petitioners and the Reyeses, which they
later on amended.60 Respondents alleged
that on August 23, 2004 they were
surprised to receive the August 9, 2004
Order of demolition directing them to
vacate the premises within 60 days from
notice since they were neither impleaded
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

nor notified of the proceedings

conducted in LRC Case No. R-6203, as
well as in the foreclosure sale.
Respondents postulated that they are not,
therefore, bound by the August 9, 2004
Order of Branch 71 for want of
jurisdiction over their persons.
Respondents reiterated their claim in Civil
Case No. 69979 that they own the
portions of subject lot which they
respectively occupy. Thus, the
implementation of said Order would
deprive them of their property without
due process of law and would render Civil
Case No. 69979 pending before Branch
268 moot.

Respondents also asserted that the right

they sought to be protected in their
Petition is clear and unmistakable and
that the invasion of such right is material
and substantial. They thus prayed for the
issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the
implementation of Branch 71’s Order of
demolition.61

On September 23, 2004, the CA issued a

Resolution62 outrightly dismissing the
Petition on procedural grounds.

Invoking substantial justice and great and

irreparable damage that may be caused
by the impending demolition of their
homes, respondents filed an Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion
to Admit Attached Amended
Petition.63 This was followed by an
Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for
Re-Raffle and for Early Resolution 64 since
the Justice to whom the case was
assigned was then on official leave.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

In a Resolution65 dated October 22, 2004,

the CA reconsidered its resolution of
dismissal and granted respondents’
prayer for the issuance of a TRO. It
restrained the implementation of the
Order of demolition as well as of the
Notice to Vacate. In the same Resolution,
the CA required petitioners to file their
comment to the Petition.

After the parties’ filing of pleadings66 and

upon respondents’ motion,67 the CA set
for hearing on January 4, 2005 the
propriety of issuing a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction. This hearing, however, did not
push through since the CA already issued
the challenged January 3, 2005
Resolution68 granting respondents’
ancillary prayer for injunctive relief. It
disposed thus:

WHEREFORE, we resolve to:

1. GRANT respondents’ prayer for

the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining
petitioners from enforcing the
Notice to Vacate and Order of
Demolition.

2. ORDER the respondents to file a

bond in the amount of Three
Hundred Thousand (₱300,000.00)
Pesos within five (5) days from
notice hereof, which shall answer
for whatever damages petitioners
may sustain by reason of the
injunction in the event that we
finally decide that respondents
were not entitled thereto.

3. CANCEL the hearing set on

January 4, 2005.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

4. CONSIDER the main petition

submitted for decision.

SO ORDERED.69

On January 12, 2005, petitioners filed a

Motion for Reconsideration70 which was
denied by the CA in its January 24, 2005
Resolution.71 Then on February 8, 2005,
respondents posted the required
injunction bond72 and the CA accordingly
issued the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction73 on February 10, 2005.

Petitioners subsequently filed a Motion

for Inhibition of the CA Sixth (6th)
Division74 which the CA granted in a
Resolution75 dated March 28, 2005.
Thereafter, petitioners sought recourse
before us via this Petition for Certiorari
ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the CA for the following reasons:

Issues

THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN EFFECT,

GAVE ITS IMPRIMATUR ONTHE VERY
CLEAR ACT OF FORUM SHOPPING DONE
BY THEPRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

II

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY

PRIVATE RESPONDENTSBEFORE THE
COURT OF APPEALS WAS AN IMPROPER
REMEDY.

III

IN ANY CASE, EVEN ASSUMING THE

PETITION FOR CERTIORARIWAS A
PROPER REMEDY THE SAME, HOWEVER,
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

WAS CLEARLYFILED OUT OF TIME.

IV

THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THE COURT OF APPEALSISSUED GOES
AGAINST ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE
ON THEMATTER.VPRIVATE
RESPONDENTS, EVEN ASSUMING THEIR
FACTUALCLAIMS TO BE TRUE, CANNOT
HAVE A BETTER RIGHT OVER THESUBJECT
PROPERTY THAN HEREIN PETITIONERS.76

Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners contend that the CA gravely

abused its discretion in issuing the
assailed January 3, 2005 Resolution and
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. They
maintain that the CA did not only
condone respondents’ clear and blatant
act of forum shopping; it actually
rewarded them for pursuing the same.
According to the petitioners,
respondents’ Complaint in Civil Case No.
69979 pending before Branch 268 already
included an ancillary relief for TRO and/or
Preliminary Injunction for the purpose of
stopping Branch 71 from implementing
its Order of demolition and dispossessing
them of the disputed property. However,
since Branch 268 did not favorably act on
their prayer for such provisional remedy,
respondents withdrew the same by
amending their Complaint, only to later
on file an original action for certiorari,
prohibition and injunction before the CA
practically raising the same issues, same
cause of action, and the very same prayer
to temporarily and then permanently
restrain Branch 71 from implementing its
Order of demolition. Petitioners assert
that what respondents actually did was to
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

split a single cause of action as they could

have pursued their prayer for injunction
in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363 as a mere
ancillary relief in Civil Case No. 69979
pending before Branch 268. Petitioners
also accuse respondents of misleading
the CA by concealing the fact that their
Complaint in Civil Case No. 69979
included an ancillary relief for injunction
and by not attaching a copy thereof to
their Petition filed with the CA.

Petitioners likewise contend that

respondents’ recourse to the CA was
premature because they did not give
Branch 71 an opportunity to correct its
alleged errors. Petitioners point out that
before resorting to a special civil action
for certiorari before the CA, respondents
should have first appealed or filed the
appropriate motion or pleading before
Branch 71 so that said court could correct
any of its perceived errors. But they did
not. Hence, no error or grave abuse of
discretion can be attributed to Branch 71.
And even assuming that respondents’
Petition before the CA is not premature,
petitioners assert that the same was filed
out of time. Respondents received the
Notice to Vacate on April 1, 2004 and,
therefore, had only until May 31, 2004
within which to file a petition for
certiorari. However, it was only on
September 14, 2004 when they invoked
the certiorari jurisdiction of the CA.
Petitioners maintain that respondents
erroneously reckoned the 60-day period
for filing a petition for certiorari on the
date they received the Order of
demolition because the same was a mere
off shoot of the Writ of Possession and
Notice to Vacate issued by Branch 71.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Petitioners further argue that the

pendency of Civil Case No. 69979 will not
bar the issuance and implementation of
the Writ of Possession in LRC Case No.R-
6203.

Lastly, petitioners asseverate that

respondents’ ancillary prayer for
injunctive relief lacked basis as they have
no clear and unmistakable right that must
be protected. Only 15 out of the 315
respondents are armed with proof of
ownership.77 And of these 15, only five
have deeds of absolute sale; the
remaining 10 have only contracts to sell
containing incomplete details of
payment. In addition, the alleged proofs
of ownership do not bear the signatures
of all the co-owners and some of those
proofs are not even notarized. And
assuming further that the titles of these
15 respondents are true, their collective
rights over the subject lot cannot prevail
over the rights of the petitioners. The
total area they occupy constitute only
about 1,371.66 square meters, or a little
over 30% of the disputed 4,432-square
meter lot.78 Above all, petitioners
registered their claim as early as January
3, 2000 while none of respondents’
alleged proofs of ownership were ever
registered.79

Respondents’ Arguments

Respondents, on the other hand, deny

having misled the CA. They claim that on
July 5, 2004 they filed their Motion to
Admit Attached Amended Complaint as a
matter of right seeking the withdrawal of
their prayer for TRO and on August 27,
2004 Branch 268 issued its Order
admitting their Amended Complaint.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Thus, when they filed their Petition in CA-

G.R. SP No. 86363 on September 14,
2004, they found it unnecessary to state
that, previously, their Complaint in Civil
Case No. 69979 contained a prayer for
the issuance of a TRO.

With regard to the second and third

assigned errors, respondents assert that
the instant Petition for Certiorari assails
only the propriety of the CA’s January
3,2005 Resolution and February 10, 2005
Writ of Preliminary Injunction. This Court
cannot thus pass upon the correctness of
respondents’ recourse to the CA as well
as the prematurity and timeliness of such
legal remedy, as the same is still pending
with said court.

Respondents further assert that the issue

of who have a better right over the
property in question is an extraneous
matter that is totally irrelevant in the
present controversy. They emphasize that
the issue to be resolved in this Petition
for Certiorari is whether the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in granting their ancillary
prayer for injunction. They claim that the
points raised by the petitioners in support
of their contention should be threshed
out in Civil Case No. 69979 (declaration of
nullity of documents and title,
reconveyance, and damages) pending
before Branch 268.

Our Ruling

The review we are bound to undertake

in this Petition for Certiorari is limited
to the determination of whether the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

granting respondents’ ancillary prayer

for preliminary injunction.

We stress at the outset that this Petition

for Certiorari merely assails the CA’s
interlocutory resolutions granting
respondents’ ancillary prayer for
injunctive relief. This does not pertain to
the main action for certiorari , prohibition
and injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363,
which is still pending before the CA. We
will thus limit ourselves to the
determination of whether the CA gravely
abused its discretion in issuing the
questioned Resolutions and avoid
matters that will preempt or render moot
whatever final decision it may render in
CA-G.R. SP No. 86363. More specifically,
we will not touch on petitioners’
contentions that respondents are guilty of
forum shopping and that the latter’s filing
of a Petition for Certiorari before the CA
was premature and out of time for the
assailed CA Resolutions pertained only to
the propriety of the issuance of the Writ
of Preliminary Injunction.

A Petition for Certiorari lies only to

correct acts rendered without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. "Its principal office is only to
keep the inferior court within the
parameters of its jurisdiction or to
prevent it from committing such a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction."80 "Grave abuse of
discretion in the issuance of writs of
preliminary injunction implies a
capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment that is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, or where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion, prejudice or
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

personal aversion amounting to an

evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or
to act at all in contemplation of law."81

A Petition for Certiorari is not the proper

remedy to review the intrinsic correctness
of the public respondent’s ruling. It is
settled that as long as a court or quasi-
judicial body acts within its jurisdiction,
any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its jurisdiction will amount to
nothing more than errors of judgment
which are not reviewable in a special civil
action of certiorari. Thus, whether the CA
committed errors in proceedings,
misappreciated the facts, or misapplied
the law is beyond our power of review in
this Petition for Certiorari for it cannot be
used for any purpose except to limit the
action of the respondent court within the
bounds of its jurisdiction.82

CA did not commit grave abuse of

discretion

From our review of the case, nothing

indicates that the CA acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion in ordering the issuance of
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Measured against jurisprudentially
established parameters, its disposition to
grant the writ was not without basis and,
hence, could not have been arrived at
capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily or
despotically. Respondents amply justified
the grant of the provisional relief they
prayed for. A Writ of Preliminary
Injunction is issued at any stage of an
action prior to judgment or final order to
prevent threatened or continuous
irremediable injury to some of the parties
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

before their claims can be thoroughly

studied or adjudicated. To justify its
issuance, the applicants must prove the
following requisites: (1) that they have a
clear and unmistakable right to be
protected, that is a right in esse; (2) there
is a material and substantial invasion of
such right; (3)there is an urgent need for
the writ to prevent irreparable injury to
the applicants; and, (4) there is no other
ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy
to prevent the infliction of irreparable
injury.83

It is true that the buyer in a foreclosure

sale becomes the absolute owner of the
property if it is not redeemed within one
year from registration of the sale and title
is consolidated in his name. "As the
confirmed owner, the purchaser’s right to
possession becomes absolute. There is
even no need for him to post a bond, and
it becomes the ministerial duty of the
courts," upon application and proof of
title, to issue a Writ of Possession to place
him in possession.84 This rule is clear from
the language of Section 33, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court. The same provision of the
Rules, however, provides as an exception
that when a third party is actually holding
the property adversely to the judgment
debtor, the duty of the court to issue a
Writ of Possession ceases to be
ministerial. Thus:

SEC. 33. Deed and possession to be given

at expiration of redemption period; by
whom executed or given. – If no
redemption be made within one (1) year
from the date of the registration of the
certificate of sale, the purchaser is
entitled to a conveyance and possession
of the property; or, if so redeemed
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed

and no other redemption has been made,
and notice thereof given, and the time for
redemption has expired, the last
redemptioner is entitled to the
conveyance and possession; but in all
cases the judgment obligor shall have the
entire period of one (1) year from the
date of the registration of the sale to
redeem the property. The deed shall be
executed by the officer making the sale or
by his successor in office, and in the latter
case shall have the same validity as
though the officer making the sale had
continued in office and executed it.

Upon the expiration of the right of

redemption, the purchaser or
redemptioner shall be substituted to and
acquire all the rights, title, interest and
claim of the judgment obligor to the
property as of the time of the levy. The
possession of the property shall be given
to the purchaser or last redemptioner by
the same officer unless a third party is
actually holding the property adversely to
the judgment obligor. (Emphasis
supplied)

Jurisprudence abounds applying this

exception to the ministerial duty of the
court in issuing the Writ of Possession. 85

Here, respondents alleged in their CA

Petition that they possess and own
portions of the property subject of the
Writ of Demolition.In support thereof,
they annexed to their Petition and Reply
deeds of conveyances, contracts to sell,
receipts, etc. showing that the Reyeses
already sold to them the portions of the
subject lot they respectively occupy. A
number of these documents predate the
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

REM which the Reyeses executed in favor

of Aldover while others were executed
subsequent thereto. Respondents’
allegation of actual possession is likewise
confirmed by the Sheriff’s Partial
Report86 which states that there are
several other persons who occupy
portions of subject lot and claim to be the
owners thereof. In fine, respondents have
indubitably shown that they are in actual
possession of the disputed portions of
subject property. Their possession, under
Article 433 of the Civil Code, raises a
disputable presumption that they are the
owners thereof.87 Thus, petitioners cannot
resort to procedural shortcut in ousting
them by the simple expedient of filing a
Motion for Special Order of Demolition in
LRC Case No. R-6203 for under the same
Article 433 petitioners have to file the
appropriate judicial process to recover
the property from the respondents. This
"judicial process," as elucidated in
Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending Investors
Corporation,88 "could mean no less than
an ejectment suit or a reinvindicatory
action, in which the ownership claims of
the contending parties may be properly
heard and adjudicated." Moreover, to
dispossess the respondents based on the
proceedings taken in LRC Case No. R-
6203 where they were not impleaded and
did not take part would be tantamount to
taking of real property without due
process of law.89

But petitioners downplayed respondents’

documentary evidence as unreliable for
being unnotarized and unregistered
compared to their TCT No. PT-122311
which was duly issued after the Reyeses
failed to redeem the property and they
(petitioners) consolidated their title
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

thereto. However, "between an

unrecorded sale of a prior date and a
recorded mortgage of a later date the
former is preferred to the latter for the
reason that if the original owner had
parted with his ownership of the thing
sold then he no longer had the ownership
and free disposal of that thing so as to be
able to mortgage it again."90

In fine, the CA cannot be said to have

acted capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily
or despotically in issuing its January 3,
2005 Resolution and February10, 2005
Writ of Preliminary Injunction to prevent
a threatened or continuous irremediable
injury. There is preliminary showing that
respondents have clear and unmistakable
right over the disputed portions of the
property which must be protected during
the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 86363.
Indeed, the precipitate demolition of their
houses would constitute material and
substantial invasion of their right which
cannot be remedied under any standard
compensation. Hence, the need for a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction.

Besides, it has been held that the trial

court (or the CA in this case) has a wide
latitude in determining the propriety of
issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
The assessment and evaluation of
evidence in the issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction involve findings of
facts ordinarily left to it for its
determination. Hence, absent a clear
showing of grave abuse of discretion, the
trial court’s disposition in injunctive
matters is not generally interfered with by
the appellate courts.91

Furthermore, we note that although the

RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

scheduled January 4, 2005 hearing on the

propriety of issuing a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction did not push through, the
parties were nonetheless amply heard
thru their pleadings. At the time the CA
issued its challenged January 3, 2005
Resolution, petitioners had already filed
their Comment92 and Rejoinder93 where
they argued at length why no injunctive
relief should be granted in favor of the
respondents. In Land Bank of the Phils. v.
Continental Watchman Agency, Inc,94 we
reiterated our ruling that there can be no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the respondent court in issuing a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction when the parties
were amply heard thereon. Thus:

We have consistently held that there is no

grave abuse of discretion in the issuance
of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction where
a party was not deprived of its day in
court, as it was heard and had
exhaustively presented all its arguments
and defenses. Hence, when contending
parties were both given ample time and
opportunity to present their respective
evidence and arguments in support of
their opposing contentions, no grave
abuse of discretion can be attributed to
the x x x court which issued the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, as it is given a
generous latitude in this regard, pursuant
to Section 4, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended.

We emphasize though that the evidence

upon which the CA based its January 3,
2005 Resolution is not conclusive as to
result in the automatic issuance of a final
injunction. "The evidence submitted for
purposes of issuing a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction is not conclusive or complete
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

for only a ‘sampling’ is needed to give the

x x x court an idea of the justification for
the preliminary injunction pending the
decision of the case on the merits."95 In
the same vein, our Decision in this case is
without prejudice to whatever final
resolution the CA and Branch 268 may
arrive at in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363 and Civil
Case Nos. 69979 and 69949, respectively.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for

Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolutions
dated January 3, 2005 and January 24,
2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 86363 are AFFIRMED. This case is
REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for
the immediate resolution of the main
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 86363.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO R. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. JOSE PORTUGAL

BRION PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that the conclusions in the

above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Division.

ANTONIO R. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the

Constitution and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes
1
 Should be Iluminada Erquiza per
the Verification and Certification
attached to respondents’
Amended Petition with the Court
of Appeals, CA rollo, p. 183.
2
 Although impleaded herein as
one of the respondents, she was
not among the signatories in the
Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping attached to
respondents’ Amended Petition
with the Court of Appeals, id. at
183-196.
3
 Should be Ricardo Sarmiento, Jr.
per the Verification and
Certification attached to
respondents’ Amended Petition
with the Court of Appeals, id. at
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

184.
4
 Should be Adelaida Calugay, id.
5
 Should be Gloria Agbusag, id.
6
 Should be Ma. Cristina Garcia
Soliman, id.
7
 Should be Milagros Tubigon, id.
8
 Should be Maricar Tubigon, id.
9
 Should be Marissa Maybituin, id.
10
 Should be Ramil Marquina, id.
11
 Although impleaded herein as
one of the respondents, he was not
among the signatories in the
Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping attached to
respondents’ Amended Petition
with the Court of Appeals, id. at
183-196.
12
 Should be Maria Eden Absin per
the Verification and Certification
attached to respondents’
Amended Petition with the Court
of Appeals, id. at 185.
13
 Should be Analyn Reucaza, id.
14
 Should be Anabelle Reucaza, id.
15
 Should be Anita Rivera
Bacamante, id.
16
 Should be Drandeb P. De Vega,
id. at 186.
17
 Should be Recy B. Tan, id.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

18
 Should be Victoria Sarmiento, id.
19
 Should be Oscar Tubigon, id.
20
 Should be Jean Cahibaybayan
Patron, id.
21
 Should be Arnold Cahibaybayan,
id.
22
 Although impleaded herein as
one of the respondents, he was not
among the signatories in the
Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping attached to
respondents’ Amended Petition
with the Court of Appeals, id. at
183-196.
23
 Should be Leonardo Jimenez, Jr.,
per the Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping attached to respondents’
Amended Petition with the Court
of Appeals, id. at 187.
24
 Should be Hilaria Malaque, id.
25
 Should be Arbie May Malaque,
id.
26
 Should be Roy Gilbert Malaque,
id.
27
 Should be Juanita Calugay Chin,
id. at 188.
28
 Should be Celia Lao Santos, id.
29
 Should be Princess Margaret Lao
Santos, id.
30
 Should be Jose Cecilio Lao
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Santos, id.
31
 Should be Jerome Czar Lao
Santos, id.
32
 Although impleaded herein as
one of the respondents, he was not
among the signatories in the
Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping attached to
respondents’ Amended Petition
with the Court of Appeals, id. at
183-196.
33
 Should be Behnsil John Del
Rosario per the Verification and
Certification of non-Forum
Shopping attached to respondents’
Amended Petition with the Court
of Appeals, id. at 188.
34
 Should be Angelo Antonio, id. at
189.
35
 Should be Jomca Orteza, id.
36
 Rollo, pp. 3-27.
37
 CA rollo, pp. 426-427; penned by
Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-
Salonga and concurred in by
Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Fernanda Lampas
Peralta.
38
 Id. at 476-477.
39
 Records, pp. 65-66; penned by
Judge Celso D. Laviña.
40
 Id. at 8-10.
41
 Id. at 5-6. Although the amount
of the loan as reflected in the REM
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

is ₱500,000.00, the Reyeses

claimed that its true amount is
only ₱300,000.00 with 5% per
month for 6 months interest rate.
The Reyeses alleged that herein
petitioners falsely and wrongfully
made it appear that the amount of
the loan is ₱500,000.00 . (See
Complaint for Annulment of
Mortgage Contract, Foreclosure
Proceedings, Auction Sale,
Certificate of Sale, Consolidation of
Ownership, with Prayer for A
Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction with Damages, Moral
and Exemplary docketed as Civil
Case No. 69949, CA rollo, pp. 136-
143).
42
 Records, p. 10.
43
 Id. at 2-4.
44
 Id. at 27-29; penned by Judge
Celso D. Laviña.
45
 Id. at 30-31.
46
 Id. at 35-37.
47
 Id. at 38.
48
 Id. at 47-48.
49
 Id. at 51-52.
50
 Id. at 53.
51
 Id. at 57-58.
52
 CA rollo, pp. 322-332.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

53
 Rollo, pp. 150-153.
54
 CA rollo, p. 336; penned by
Judge Amelia C. Manalastas.
55
 Rollo, p. 162.
56
 Records, pp. 59-60.
57
 Id. at 65-66.
58
 d. at 66.
59
 CA rollo, pp. 2-37.
60
 See Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration x x x and Motion
to Admit Attached Amended
Petition, id. at151-158. See also
Amended Petition, id. at 159-215.
61
 Respondents likewise claimed
that in recognition of their long
and continued occupation, they
were allowed to purchase the lots
they occupy on installment; that
some of them were able to pay in
full their obligation and for which
the Reyeses executed Deeds of
Sale while others are still in the
process of paying the monthly
amortizations as provided in their
respective Contracts to Sell; and,
that the rest remain as lessees
while still negotiating for the
eventual acquisition of the portion
of the lot they occupy. However,
the Reyeses in cahoots with herein
petitioners, mortgaged the entire
property to the latter without any
intention of paying the loan,
thereby allowing the eventual
transfer of the property to the
petitioners. Respondents asserted
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

that even then the mortgage is a

nullity because prior to the alleged
mortgage petitioners had actual
knowledge that they occupy the
property by virtue of deeds of
conveyance.

Respondents further alleged in

their CA Petition that they were in
the process of filing Estafa charges
against the Reyeses. They believed
that the case initiated by the
Reyeses for the recovery of the
subject property which was
subsequently consolidated with
their case pending before Branch
268 was a mere cover up to give
semblance of truth to the alleged
mortgage transaction. Notably, the
Reyeses intentionally suppressed
the fact that the actual occupants
of the mortgaged property are
herein respondents by not
mentioning the same in their
Complaint.
62
 CA rollo, pp. 145-146; penned by
Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-
Salonga and concurred in by
Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Fernanda Lampas
Peralta.
63
 Id. at 151-158.
64
 Id. at 216-220.
65
 Id. at 306-307; penned by
Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-
Salonga and concurred in by
Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Fernanda Lampas
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Peralta.
66
 See herein respondents’
Comment, id. at 314-321; and
herein petitioners’ Reply, id, at
353-363 and Rejoinder, id. at 395-
396.
67
 See Urgent Motion for Early
Resolution of Injunction, id. at 397-
404; and, Extremely Urgent Motion
to Maintain Status Quo, id. 405-
408.
68
 Id. at 426-427.
69
 Id. at 427.
70
 Id. at 435-445.
71
 Id. at 465.
72
 See photocopies of official
receipts, id. at 473.
73
 Id. at 476-477.
74
 Id. at 478-479.
75
 Id. at 481; penned by Associate
Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga
and concurred in by Associate
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.
76
 Rollo, pp. 9-10.
77
 Namely: (a) Spouses Hernando
and Susana Ahorro; (b) Spouses
Carlito and Iluminada Erquiza; (c)
ArlineM. Singson; (d) Brian Del
Rosario; (e) Ma. Luisa Lucas-Santos
and Sonia Santos-Malaque; (f)
Carmelita Rivera, Ma, Luisa Vistro,
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

Virginia Navarro; (g) Almaceres

Mishima; (h) Rosemarie Bonifacio;
(i) Spouses Efren and Angelina
Flores; (j) Aurelia Cahibaybayan; (k)
Spouses Jessie and Bibiana
Cahibaybayan; (l) Ma.Celeste L.
Vasquez; (m) Cecilia R. Famorca; (n)
Alfonso F. Cabuganan; and, (o)
Angelita S. Albert. See rollo, pp.
21-22.
78
 As alleged in petitioners’
Memorandum, id. at 592. Note
however that per TCT No. PT-
107508, the subject property
consists only of 4,044 square
meters.
79
 Prior to the inscription of the
Certificate of Sale on September 2,
2002, Aldover also caused the
annotation of an Adverse Claim on
TCT No. PT-107508 on January 3,
2000.
80
 Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R.
No. 172299, April 22, 2008, 552
SCRA 424, 436.
81
 Dela Rosa v. Heirs of Juan
Valdez, G.R. No. 159101, July 27,
2011, 654 SCRA 467, 480.
82
 Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank,
supra note 80.
83
 St. James College of Parañaque
v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No.
179441, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA
328,344.
84
 Asia United Bank v. Goodland
Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051,
November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 637,
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

646.
85
 Id.; Bank of the Philippine Islands
v. Icot, G.R. No. 168061, October
12, 2009, 603 SCRA 322;

Development Bank of the

Philippines v. Prime Neighborhood
Association, G.R. Nos. 175728 and
178914,May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA
582; Dayot v. Shell Chemical
Company (Phils.), Inc., 552 Phil. 602
(2007); Philippine National Bank v.
Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 757
(2002).
86
 Records, pp. 57-58.
87
 Article 433 of the CIVIL CODE
reads:

Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable
presumption of ownership. The
true owner must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of the
property.
88
 G.R. No. 177881, October 13,
2010, 633 SCRA 173, 183; citing
Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company
(Phils.) Inc., supra at 615.
89
 Id.; id.
90
 Reyes v. De Leon, 126 Phil. 710,
717 (1967).
91
 Australian Professional Realty,
Inc. v. Municipality of Padre Garcia,
Batangas Province, G.R. No.
183367,March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA
253, 261-262.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA JD2 - BLOCK B
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
ATTY. RAMON CERVANTES

92
 CA rollo, pp. 314-321.
93
 Id. at 395-396.
94
 465 Phil. 607, 610 (2004).
95
 Urbanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
407 Phil. 856, 867 (2001).