FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238082. June 4, 2018.]
ARMANDO G. GARCIA, REPRESENTED BY ANNA MARIA LUISA T. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 4, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238082 — Armando G. Garcia, represented by Anna Maria Luisa T. Garcia v. Philippine National Bank.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) failure to pay P1,000.00 as fees for the prayer for a temporary restraining order and P300.00 for deposit of sheriff's fee, the amount paid being only P4,530.00, when it should have been P5,830.00 in violation of Section 3, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 5, Rule 56 of the said Rules; (2) raising factual issues; and (3) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in denying the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 101969. ATICcS
The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the probative value of the evidence presented before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) concerning respondent's compliance with the notice requirement under Section 3 of Act No. 3135 1 and the imposition of allegedly unconscionable hidden interest rates, penalty charges, and attorney's fees. Being factual in nature, the same cannot be entertained in the instant petition for review without violating Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts. While there are recognized exceptions to aforesaid rule, none exists in this case. In any case, petitioner is not left without any remedy as these issues are the proper subject of petitioner's action for declaration of nullity of foreclosure and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-55247 and pending before Branch 97 of the RTC of Quezon City.
Note also that petitioner assails the CA's Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 101969. Thus, the issue should concern the CA's affirmance of the RTC's grant of respondent's ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. A perusal of the CA's Decision shows that it correctly emphasized the trial court's ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession after a purchaser's consolidation of ownership in the absence of a third party's possession of the consolidated property. As we held in Baring v. Elena Loan and Credit Co., Inc., 2 "any question regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be raised as justification for opposing the issuance of the writ. A pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession." 3
Finally, the CA correctly denied petitioner's motion for extension to file motion for reconsideration for being prohibited pleading. ETHIDa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated November 29, 2017 and Resolution dated March 7, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101969.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real-Estate Mortgages.
2. G.R. No. 224225, August 14, 2017.
3. Citing Spouses Tolosa v. UCPB, 708 Phil. 134, 144 (2013).