Jayag v. BDO Unibank, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 222503. April 18, 2016.]

JOSE P. JAYAG and MARILYN P. JAYAG, petitioners, vs. BDO UNIBANK, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 April 2016which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 222503: JOSE P. JAYAG and MARILYN P. JAYAG v. BDO UNIBANK, INC.

This Petition 1 assails the trial court's issuance of a writ of possession. Petitioners argue that the writ of possession should not have been issued in view of a prior ruling that the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property were null and void. 2

In its Decision 3 dated August 18, 2014, Branch 145 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City nullified mortgagee-respondent BDO Unibank, Inc.'s (BDO) extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of mortgagors-petitioners Jose P. Jayag and Marilyn P. Jayag's (Jayag Spouses) property. 4

Fifteen (15) days after Branch 145 declared BDO's foreclosure as null and void, Branch 146 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City rendered a Decision dated September 2, 2014. 5 Branch 146 granted BDO's application for a writ of possession covering the same property, and issued the writ of possession 6 in BDO's favor on September 18, 2014. 7 The writ directed the Sheriff to place BDO in possession of and to eject the Jayag Spouses from the mortgaged property. 8

Pursuant to the writ of possession, Branch 146 Deputy Sheriff Rommel M. Ignacio (Sheriff Ignacio) served on the Jayag Spouses a Notice to Vacate 9 dated September 29, 2014.

Spouses Jayag appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65. 10 On January 18, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed Branch 146's issuance of the writ of possession. 11 Aggrieved, the Jayag Spouses elevated the case before this Court.

Meanwhile, Sheriff Ignacio served on the Jayag Spouses a second Notice to Vacate 12 dated March 7, 2016.

In a Letter 13 dated March 14, 2016, Jose P. Jayag wrote to this Court, praying for the issuance of a status quo order as his family is in danger of losing their home and livelihood. 14

On March 16, 2016, the Jayag Spouses filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Status Quo Order 15 pending the decision of this case on the merits.

Considering the allegations contained, the issues raised, and the arguments adduced in the Petition, this Court finds it necessary and proper to grant a status quo ante order.

For a status quo ante order to be issued, the Jayag Spouses only need to show that they have an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for and that such right must be protected. 16 In Filipino Metals Corporation v. Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry: 17

[A] writ of preliminary injunction is issued merely to preserve the status quo ante. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. It is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be disposed of.

xxx xxx xxx

Only two requisites are necessary for a preliminary injunction to issue: (1) the existence of a right to be protected and (2) the facts, against which the injunction is to be directed violate said right. While a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction need not be conclusive or complete. The evidence need only give the court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction, pending the decision of the case on the merits. Thus, to be entitled to the writ, petitioners are only required to show that they have an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint. 18

The Jayag Spouses assail the issuance of a writ of possession as their final relief in this case. In light of the Decision dated August 18, 2014 of Branch 145, the Jayag Spouses has an ostensible right against the Branch 146's issuance of the writ of possession on September 18, 2014 and Sheriff Ignacio's Notices to Vacate on September 29, 2014 and March 7, 2016. 19 aTHCSE

Branch 145 nullified and declared void the foreclosure and sale of the Jayag Spouses' conjugal dwelling. Thus, Branch 146's grant of the writ of possession in BDO's favor — notwithstanding Branch 145's earlier judgment — is violative of the Jayag Spouses' clear showing of a right. This Court deems that such right, although not yet conclusive nor complete, is sufficient to justify the grant of a status quo ante order. 20

Thus, pending the decision of this case on the merits, the parties are directed to maintain their situation prior to Branch 146's Decision dated September 2, 2014.

WHEREFORE, effective immediately and until further order of this Court, the parties are hereby ORDERED to maintain the status quo ante pending the determination of this case. Respondent BDO Unibank, Inc. is REQUIRED to comment on the Petition, and petitioner Jose P. Jayag's Letter dated March 14, 2016 is NOTED.

Let copies of this Resolution be served on the parties personally and by registered mail.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-13.

2. Id. at 11.

3. Id. at 110-126. The Decision, docketed as Civil Case No. 13-330, was penned by Presiding Judge Carlito B. Calpatura.

4. Id. at 125.

5. Id. at 92, Writ of Possession.

6. Id. at 92-93. The Writ of Possession, dated September 18, 2014 and docketed as LRC Case No. M-5927, was issued by Presiding Judge Encarnacion Jaja G. Moya of Branch 146 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. The Writ of Possession was issued pursuant to the case entitled In Re: Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession under the Property Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 218703 Registered in the Name of Jose P. Jayag, married to Marilyn P. Jayag.

7. Id. at 93.

8. Id.

9. Id. at 106.

10. Id. at 15, Court of Appeals Decision.

11. Id. at 23. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (Chair) and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting of the Second Division.

12. Id. at 107.

13. Id. at 108-109.

14. Id. at 108.

15. Id. at 96-102.

16. Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc. v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930, 941 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

17. 502 Phil. 191 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].

18. Id. at 200-201, citing Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc. v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930, 941 and 945-946 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Hon. Lim v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 857, 869 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division]; and Spouses Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 743 (2000) [Per J. Buena, Second Division].

19. Rollo, pp. 8-11, Petition for Review.

20. Filipino Metals Corporation v. Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, 502 Phil. 191, 200-201 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].