Digests UCPB Vs Lumbo

[G.R. No. 162757. December 11, 2013.
] To resolve the issue of whether the CA correctly granted the

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. CHRISTOPHER injunctive writ to enjoin the implementation of the writ of possession
LUMBO and MILAGROS LUMBO, respondents. the RTC had issued to place UCPB in the possession of the
mortgaged property, it is necessary to explain the nature of the writ
Facts of possession and the consequences of its implementation.
The respondents borrowed the aggregate amount of P12,000,000.00
from UCPB. To secure the performance of their obligation, they A writ of possession commands the sheriff to place a person in
constituted a real estate mortgage on their “Titay’s South Beach possession of real property. It may be issued in the following
Resort”. They failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed. instances, namely: (1) land registration proceedings under
UCPB acquired the property at the ensuing foreclosure sale. Section 17 of Act No. 496; (2) judicial foreclosure, provided the
Respondents failed to redeem the property within the redemption debtor is in possession of the mortgaged property, and no
period (1-year from registration) thus title to the aforementioned third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had
property was consolidated in the name of UCPB. intervened; (3) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate
mortgage, pending redemption under Section 7 of Act No.
UCPB filed in the RTC a petition for issuance of a writ of possession. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (4) execution sales,
The respondents on the other hand filed a petition to cancel the pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of
foreclosure sale along with an application for a writ of preliminary the Rules of Court.
injunction and TRO. Thus, the grant of the writ of possession is but a ministerial act on
the part of the issuing court, because its issuance is a matter of
The RTC granted UCPB’s possession. On the other hand, the RTC right on the part of the purchaser. The judge issuing the order for
denied the respondent’s application for injunction. the granting of the writ of possession pursuant to the express
provisions of Act No. 3135 cannot be charged with having acted
Aggrieved by the denial, the respondents brought a petition without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
for certiorari and/or mandamus in the CA.
If the redemption period expires without the mortgagor or his
The CA resolved C.A.-G.R. SP No. 70261 by granting the respondents' successor-in-interest redeeming the foreclosed property within one
petition, setting aside the assailed orders, and enjoining the RTC year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds, the
from implementing the writ of possession. title over the property consolidates in the purchaser. The issuance of
a writ of possession to the purchaser becomes a matter of right upon
Issue the consolidation of title in his name, while the mortgagor, by failing
1. WON the CA erred in granting the certiorari (and as a to redeem, loses all interest in the property.|||
consequence, effectively granting respondents’ injunctive writ)
*chunkynote – certiorari is issued against decisions made in
“grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of 2. A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
jurisdiction” action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order requiring a
2. WON the CA erred in granting the respondents’ injunctive writ party or a court, an agency, or a person to refrain from a particular a
particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a
LRJ particular act or acts, in which case it is known as a preliminary
1. An error of judgment is one that the court may commit in the mandatory injunction. Thus, a prohibitory injunction is one that
exercise of its jurisdiction, and such error is reviewable only through commands a party to refrain from doing a particular act, while a
an appeal taken in due course. In contrast, an error of jurisdiction is mandatory injunction commands the performance of some positive
committed where the act complained of was issued by the court act to correct a wrong in the past.||
without or in excess of jurisdiction, and such error is correctible only
by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
UCPB vs Lumbo1 of 2
Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, the issuance of a writ of 2. The respondents made no such showing of their holding a right in
preliminary injunction may be justified under any of the following esse (“in actual existence”). They could not do so simply because their
circumstances, namely: non-redemption within the period of redemption had lost for them
any right in the property, including its possession. They had no "right
(a) The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of
and the whole or part of such relief consists law".
in restraining the commission or continuance
of the act or acts complained of, or in SC grants certiorari. Reverses CA.
requiring the performance of an act or acts,
either for a limited period or perpetually; Doctrine learned
(b) The commission, continuance or non- Certiorari is granted against errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
performance of the act or acts complained of judgment.
during the litigation would probably work
injustice to the applicant; or
(c) A party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is
procuring or suffering to be done, some act or
acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action
or proceeding, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.
A right is in esse if it exists in fact. In the case of injunction, the right
sought to be protected should at least be shown to exist prima facie.
Unless such a showing is made, the applicant is not entitled to an
injunctive relief
Ratio Decidendi
1. CA did not properly appreciate the nature of the supposed error
attributed to the RTC.||
There is no question that the RTC had jurisdiction over both Civil
Case No. 5920 and Special Proceedings No. 5884, it should follow
that its consideration and resolution of the respondents' application
for the injunctive writ filed in Special Proceedings No. 5884 were
taken in the exercise of that jurisdiction. As earlier made plain, UCPB
as the registered owner of the property was at that point
unquestionably entitled to the full implementation of the writ of
possession. In the absence of any clear and persuasive showing that
it capriciously or whimsically denied the respondents' application, its
denial of the application did not constitute grave abuse of discretion
amounting to either lack or excess of jurisdiction.
UCPB vs Lumbo2 of 2

Digests UCPB Vs Lumbo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digests UCPB Vs Lumbo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Digests UCPB Vs Lumbo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 162757. December 11, 2013.

] To resolve the issue of whether the CA correctly granted the

You might also like