Rayo vs. Metrobank 539 Scra 571
Rayo vs. Metrobank 539 Scra 571
Rayo vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 539 SCRA 571 ,
December 10, 2007
Case Title : EDUARDO L. RAYO, petitioner, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY AND BRANCH 223 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
QUEZON CITY, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari
of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class : Actions|Land Titles and Deeds|Judicial Review|Forum
Shopping|Foreclosure of Mortgage|Parties|Words and Phrases|Writs of
Possession|Due Process|Statutes|Act No. 3135
Division: SECOND DIVISION
Ponente: QUISUMBING
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
Resolutions dated June 15, 2004 and August 23, 2004 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83895 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the
petitioner.
Citation Ref:
458 SCRA 595 | 452 SCRA 697 | 450 SCRA 396 | 428 SCRA 759 | 463 SCRA
504 | 169 SCRA 244 | 470 SCRA 157 | 318 SCRA 94 | 459 SCRA 753 | 517
SCRA 643 | 333 SCRA 189 | 466 SCRA 307 | 448 SCRA 140 | 448 SCRA
203 | 107 Phil. 664
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rayo vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
which means such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will
entitle him, under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or
that he has the legal title to demand.Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-
interest, or one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.
A real party-in-interest is one with a present substantial interest which means
such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him, under
the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has the legal
title to demand.
Same; Same; Writs of Possession; Due Process; An ex parte petition for the issuance
of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a
judicial process as contemplated in Article 433 of the Civil Codeit is a judicial
proceeding for the enforcement of ones right of possession as purchaser in a
foreclosure sale, not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues
another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong.There was no violation of petitioners right to constitutional
due process. In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled that the issuance of
a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale of a mortgaged
property under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended is a ministerial duty of the
court. The purchaser of the foreclosed property, upon ex parte application and the
posting of the required bond, has the right to acquire possession of the foreclosed
property during the 12-month redemption period and with more reason, after the
expiration of the redemption period. An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a judicial
process as contemplated in Article 433 of the Civil Code. It is a judicial proceeding
for the enforcement of ones right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale.
It is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues another for the
enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong. It is a non-litigious proceeding authorized in an extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended, and is brought for the benefit of
one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely
interested. It is a proceeding where the relief is granted without requiring an
opportunity for the person against whom the relief is sought to be heard. No notice
is needed to be served upon persons interested in the subject property.
573
Before us is a petition for review assailing the Resolutions dated June 15, 20041 and
August 23, 20042 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83895 for annulment of
judgment.
The pertinent facts are undisputed.
Midas Diversified Export Corp. (Midas), thru its president, Mr. Samuel U. Lee,
obtained six (6) loans from private respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company (Metrobank), amounting to P588,870,000 as evidenced by promissory
notes. To secure the payment of an P8,000,000 loan, Louisville Realty &
Development Corporation (Louisville), thru its president, Mr. Samuel U. Lee,
executed in favor of Metrobank, a real estate mortgage over three parcels of land
situated at No. 40 Timog Ave., Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City, with all the
buildings and improvements thereon. The properties are covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. N-163455, N-166349 and N-166350 issued by the
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.
When the debtor-mortgagor failed to pay, Metrobank extra-judicially foreclosed the
real estate mortgage in accordance
_______________
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rayo vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
implemented as evidenced by the Turn-Over Receipt9 dated December 3, 2003.
Meanwhile, on April 3, 2002, petitioner Eduardo L. Rayo filed a complaint10
docketed as Civil Case No. Q02-46514 against Metrobank for Nullification of Real
Estate Mortgage Contract(s) and Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, in the RTC, Branch
99, Quezon City.
On May 13, 2004, petitioner Rayo filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition11 for
Annulment of Judgment on the ground of absolute lack of due process. Petitioner
alleged that his predecessor, Louisville, was not notified of the proceedings and that
Section 712 (ex parte motion or petition for
_______________
9 Id., at p. 260.
10 Id., at pp. 116-130.
11 Id., at pp. 39-65.
12 Sec. 7. Possession during redemption period.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 violating the mortgage or
without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made
under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral
proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of
property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and
ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered
with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance
with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of
such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred
and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act
Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of
the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the
province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order
immediately.
577
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAS THE LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SEEK THE
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT IN [THE] SUBJECT LRC CASE NO. Q-13915(01).
_______________
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rayo vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
II.
WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST FORUM-
SHOPPING WHEN IT DID NOT INFORM THE HONORABLE BRANCH 223 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY REGARDING THE FILING OF CIVIL CASE
NO. Q-02-46514 FOR NULLIFICATION OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE CONTRACT AND
THE EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE OF THE SAME SUBJECT REAL PROPERTIES
AND THE PENDENCY OF THE SAME BEFORE THE HONORABLE BRANCH 99 OF THE
SAME REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.14
Stated simply, the issues raised are: (1) Does petitioner have the legal personality
in the annulment of judgment proceedings? (2) Is Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
amended, unconstitutional? (3) Is respondent guilty of forum shopping?
Petitioner insists that contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, he has the legal
personality to institute the annulment of judgment case against Metrobank,
considering that the March 25, 2002 deed of assignment he entered into with
Louisville and Winston Linwy L. Chua makes him a coassignee over the subject real
properties.
For its part, Metrobank claims that it was not a party to the deed of assignment
among Louisville, Chua and petitioner, hence, it has no privity of contract with
petitioner Rayo. Moreover, Metrobank points out that the real properties had already
been extrajudicially foreclosed when petitioner and his assignors executed the deed
of assignment.
Under Section 2,15 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party-
_______________
14 Id., at p. 228.
15 SEC. 2. Parties in interest.A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
579
16 Caro v. Sucaldito, G.R. No. 157536, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 595, 605.
17 See Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995, 246
SCRA 540, 564-565.
18 Ancheta v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc., G.R. No. 163410,
September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 157; Paderes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 147074
and 147075, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 504; Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
160479, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 753; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Gatal,
G.R. No. 138567, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 697; Idolor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
161028, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 396; De Vera v. Agloro, G.R. No. 155673,
January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 203; Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121494, June 8,
2000, 333 SCRA 189; Samson v. Rivera, G.R. No. 154355, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA
759.
580
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rayo vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
property during the 12-month redemption period and with more reason, after the
expiration of the redemption period.
An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act
No. 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a judicial process as contemplated in Article
43319 of the Civil Code. It is a judicial proceeding for the enforcement of ones right
of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit filed in
court, by which one party sues another for the enforcement of a wrong or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. It is a non-litigious
proceeding authorized in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage pursuant to Act
No. 3135, as amended, and is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without
notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested. It is a proceeding where
the relief is granted without requiring an opportunity for the person against whom
the relief is sought to be heard. No notice is needed to be served upon persons
interested in the subject property.20
Second, in the deed of assignment, petitioner also acknowledged that the subject
real properties were already sold at various extrajudicial foreclosure sales and
bought by Metrobank. Clearly, petitioner recognized the prior existing right of
Metrobank as the mortgagee-purchaser over the subject real properties.21 Actual
knowledge of a prior mortgage with Metrobank is equivalent to notice of
registration22 in accordance with Article 212523 of the Civil Code. Conformably with
_______________
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rayo vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
amended. Hence, even petitioners action for annulment of judgment cannot
prosper as it cannot be a substitute for a lost remedy.
Now, petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
amended. He avers that Section 7 violates the due process clause because, by the
mere filing of an ex parte motion in the proper cadastral court, the purchaser in a
foreclosure sale is allowed to obtain possession of the foreclosed property during
the redemption period.
The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners attempt to challenge the
constitutionality of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, constitutes a collateral
attack that is not allowed. We fully agree with the appellate courts ruling. For
reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be attacked
collaterally.28
With regard to forum shopping; forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists where the
elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another.29 The issuance of the writ of possession being a
ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on
the merits. It is only an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for
annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or
res judi-
_______________
all or part of the bond furnished by the person who obtained possession. Either of
the parties may appeal from the order of the judge in accordance with section
fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety six; but the order of possession
shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal. (Emphasis ours.)
28 Philippine National Bank v. Palma, G.R. No. 157279, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA
307, 322-323.
29 Melo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123686, November 16, 1999, 318 SCRA 94,
100.
583
_______________
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Rayo vs.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 539 SCRA 571, G.R. No. 165142 December
10, 2007