DBP vs. Gatal, 452 SCRA 697

Case No.
64
DBP vs. Gatal, 452 SCRA 697
Topic
viii. Writ of Possession: To give effect to the right of possession, the purchaser must invoke the aid of the
court and ask for a writ or possession without need of bringing a separate independent suit for this
purpose.
Fact
Spouses Wilfredo and Azucena Gatal obtained a loan of P1,500,000.00 from the Development Bank of
the Philippines (DBP). The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over a commercial lot at No. 3 J.A.
Clarin Street, Tagbilaran City.
Due to failure of respondents to pay their loan, DBP foreclosed the mortgage in December 1994. In
January 1996, the title of the lot was consolidated in the name of petitioner DBP. The property was
offered for sale at public auction, but none of the bidders was able to meet the bid price ceiling.
DBP offered the property for negotiated sale on condition that the buyer must pay 20% of the selling
price as down payment, the balance payable under the terms of the interested buyer.
Spouses Gatal submitted their bid in the amount of P2,160,000.00 and made a deposit equivalent to
10% of the bid price. However, another buyer, Jimmy Torrefranca, offered a bid of P2,300,000.00, or
P140,000.00 higher than respondents' bid. Upon learning of Torrefranca's offer, respondents wrote DBP
requesting that they will match his bid. But petitioner rejected respondents' request because
Torrefranca was already declared the preferred bidder.
Spouses Gatal filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction seeking to (a) declare the sale of the property to Torrefranca void and uphold
respondents' right of pre-emption; and (b) maintain the status quo between the parties prior to the
filing of the suit, while DBP petition for issuance of a writ of possession. RTC granted the suit to DBP.
Spouses Gatal filed a motion to dismiss of DBP and a motion to quash the writ of possession on the
ground of litis pendentia which the court granted, DBP moved for reconsideration but the motion was
denied.
CA upheld the decision of the RTC.
Issue
1. Is there litis pendencia?
2. Did the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding that the trial court correctly
dismissed Civil Case No. 6097 of DBP on the ground of litis pendentia?
Ruling
1. No.
2. Yes.
One of the grounds for dismissing an action is when there is litis pendentia as provided under Section
1(e), Rule 16, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, thus:
"SECTION 1. Grounds. - Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: (e) That there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
For litis pendentia to lie as a ground for a motion to dismiss, the following requisites must be present:
(1) that the parties to the action are the same;
(2) that there is substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought; and
(3) that the result of the first action is determinative of the second in any event and regardless of which
party is successful.
Section 33, Rule 39 of the same Rules provides:
"SECTION 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; xxx 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."
Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, reads:

"Sec. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First
Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him
possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of
the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale
was made without complying with the requirements of this Act.
Once a mortgaged estate is extrajudicially sold, and is not redeemed within the reglementary period, no
separate and independent action is necessary to obtain possession of the property. The purchaser at the
public auction has only to file a petition for issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 33 of
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
To give effect to the right of possession, the purchaser must invoke the aid of the court and ask for a
writ or possession without need of bringing a separate independent suit for this purpose.
There is no litis pendencia. The RTC (Branch 47) erred when it granted respondents' motion to dismiss
and recalled the writ of possession it earlier issued. Where, as here, the title is consolidated in the name
of the mortgagee, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right on the part of the mortgagee, and it
is a ministerial duty on the part of the trial court to issue the same. The pendency of a separate civil suit
questioning the validity of the sale of the mortgaged property cannot bar the issuance of the writ of
possession. The rule equally applies to separate civil suits questioning the validity of the mortgage or its
foreclosure and the validity of the public auction sale.
The Court of Appeals likewise erred in applying the doctrine of non-interference between courts of
equal rank. Under the said doctrine, a trial court has no authority to interfere with the proceedings of a
court of equal jurisdiction.When Branch 47 issued the writ of possession, it did not interfere with the
jurisdiction of Branch 4 in the injunction case. It merely exercised its ministerial function of issuing the
writ of possession.

DBP vs. Gatal, 452 SCRA 697

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DBP vs. Gatal, 452 SCRA 697

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DBP vs. Gatal, 452 SCRA 697

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No.

DBP vs. Gatal, 452 SCRA 697

CA upheld the decision of the RTC.

(1) that the parties to the action are the same;

Section 33, Rule 39 of the same Rules provides:

Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, reads:

You might also like