THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240547. July 10, 2019.]
SPOUSES BRIGIDO S. REYES AND PERLITA L. REYES, PABLITO B. MENDOZA, RODOLFO M. REYES, FILIPINO L. SEBASTIAN, NESIE V. CRISOLOGO AND LILIBETH R. MANUEL, petitioners, vs.RURAL BANK OF SAN MATEO, ISABELA, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240547 (Spouses Brigido S. Reyes and Perlita L. Reyes, Pablito B. Mendoza, Rodolfo M. Reyes, Filipino L. Sebastian, Nesie V. Crisologo and Lilibeth R. Manuel vs. Rural Bank of San Mateo, Isabela, Inc.). — The Court NOTES respondent's comment dated November 28, 2018 on the petition for review on certiorari.
The Court resolves the petition for review on certiorari, 1 filed by Spouses Brigido S. Reyes and Perlita L. Reyes, Pablito B. Mendoza, Rodolfo M. Reyes, Filipino L. Sebastian, Nesie V. Crisologo and Lilibeth R. Manuel (petitioners), assailing the Resolutions dated January 16, 2018 2 and June 27, 2018 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108880.
Factual Antecedents
On November 3, 2015, the Rural Bank of San Mateo, Isabela, Inc. (respondent) filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, docketed as SCA Case No. 35-0409, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Branch 35. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an Opposition to Petitioner's Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession 4 on January 4, 2016.
After due proceedings, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondent. 5 The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied the motion in its Order 6 dated March 29, 2017. On even date, the branch clerk of court issued a Writ of Possession, addressed to the Deputy Sheriff, ordering the latter to place the respondent in possession of the property subject of the case. 7
Subsequently, the RTC issued an Order 8 dated April 10, 2017 which reads:
In order to have a peaceful and orderly implementation of the writ of execution issued in this case, the PNP Regional Command of Tuguegarao City, the Provincial PNP Isabela Command in Ilagan, Isabela and the PNP Ramon Command are directed to extend necessary police assistance to Sheriff Julius Osmeña S. Guiao of this Court relative to the full implementation and service of the Writ of Possession in this case.
SO ORDERED. 9
On April 17, 2017, the petitioners appealed the aforementioned order before the CA. 10 The RTC gave due course to the appeal and transmitted the records of the case to the CA. 11
The Proceedings before the CA
On September 6, 2017, the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal 12 for being frivolous and dilatory. It likewise prayed that the records of the case be remanded to the RTC to enable the latter to proceed with the implementation of the writ of possession. 13
The CA, in the Resolution 14 dated January 16, 2018, granted the respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal. The decretal portion of the resolution reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, [respondent's] Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED. Pursuant to Section 1 (i), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED outright.
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphasis in the original)
The CA, in its assailed resolution, explained that the RTC's Order dated April 10, 2017 is clearly not a final order as contemplated by the rules or jurisprudence as it merely directs the concerned law enforcement officers to assist in the implementation of the writ of execution. Considering that the assailed order was made pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the RTC, the CA emphasized that appeals from orders of execution violate the doctrine of immutability of judgments. 16
The CA, in its Resolution 17 dated June 27, 2018, likewise denied the Spouses Reyes' Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.
The petitioners mainly argue that they are entitled to be informed and to know the facts and law upon which their cause of action was resolved. Essentially, they pray for this Court to brush aside procedural infirmities to prevent denial of justice. They contend that the CA should have, instead of dismissing their appeal outright, ordered them to clarify and rectify their mistakes.
Ruling of the Court
The petition lacks merit.
The Court notes, at the outset, that the petitioners' appeal pertained to the RTC's Order dated April 10, 2017 as specifically cited in their Notice of Appeal. On this score, the CA did not commit any reversible error when it dismissed the appeal outright.
The CA correctly ruled that the RTC's Order dated April 10, 2017 is not a proper subject of an appeal under Section 1, 18 Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 Hence, the CA correctly granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal in accordance with Section 1 (i), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, viz.:
Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable.
Significantly, the petitioners impliedly admitted the fact that they committed a procedural lapse when they appealed the Order dated April 10, 2017 of the RTC. On the one hand, they call for the relaxation of the rules in their favor and invoke substantial justice.
Regrettably, the relaxation of the rules is not warranted by the circumstances of this case. The Court cannot subscribe to petitioners' erroneous recourse of appealing from the RTC's Order dated April 10, 2017. A further perusal of the petitioners' arguments in the present petition reveals that they are actually assailing the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent issuance of the certificate of sale issued in favor of the respondent.
The Court, however, points out that any question or objection that the petitioners may have had on the validity of the sale and the writ issued pursuant thereto should have been threshed out in a subsequent proceeding under Section 8 20 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. 21 Also, such question is not to be raised as a justification for opposing the issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding is ex parte. 22
Having noted the foregoing, the Court dispenses with the need to discuss the soundness of the foreclosure proceedings and the validity of the issuance of the certificate of sale in favor of the respondent.
Evidently, the petitioners utterly failed to show that the CA erred in issuing the assailed resolutions as the CA acted prudently in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-69. Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Pedro B. Corales concurring; id. at 70-72.
3.Id. at 73-74.
4. RTC records, pp. 30-33.
5.Id. at 297-308.
6.Id. at 381.
7.Id. at 382-384.
8.Id. at 385.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 389-390.
11.Id. at 396.
12. CA rollo, pp. 41-46.
13.Id. at 44.
14.Rollo, pp. 70-72.
15.Id. at 72.
16.Id. at 73.
17.Id. at 73-74.
18. Section 1. Subject of an appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
19.Rollo, p. 12.
20.SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested, but not later than thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the provisions hereof, and the court shall take cognizance of this petition in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in section one hundred and twelve of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six; and if it finds the complaint of the debtor justified, it shall dispose in his favor of 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.
21.Spouses Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc., 610 Phil. 628, 638 (2009).
22.PNB v. Sanao Marketing Corp., 503 Phil. 260, 272-273 (2005).