THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 190092. June 28, 2021.]
SPOUSES GAUDENCIO C. VALERIO AND AMPARO VALERIO, petitioners,vs. CREDIT PILIPINAS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 28, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 190092 (Spouses Gaudencio C. Valerio and Amparo Valerio v. Credit Pilipinas, Inc.). — The Court resolves to NOTE the Notice of Change of Address dated December 14, 2020, filed by Atty. Noel R. Valerio of The Law Offices of Maderazo Valerio and Partners, counsel for petitioners, to 207-208 West City Plaza Building, No. 66 West Ave., Brgy. West Triangle, Quezon City.
This Petition 1 assails the July 22, 2009 Decision 2 and October 27, 2009 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 100743 which reversed and set aside the June 4, 2007 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 195 of Parañaque City in Civil Case No. 07-008 and reinstated the December 7, 2006 Decision 5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 77 of Parañaque City in Civil Case No. 2003-518.
The antecedents:
On December 9, 2003, respondent Credit Pilipinas, Inc. (CPI) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer 6 with the MeTC against the spouses Gaudencio and Amparo Valerio (spouses Valerio). It alleged that it was the mortgagee of a parcel of land with improvements located at No. 8 Gentleness Street, Multinational Village, Parañaque City with an area of 204 square meters (sqm). Thereafter, the subject property was foreclosed with respondent CPI as the highest bidder at the public auction. Thus, respondent CPI acquired ownership over the subject properly and a corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor which was annotated in the Certificate of Title.
The redemption period expired without the spouses Valerio redeeming the subject property thus, CPI executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership. Consequently, a Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued in the name of respondent CPI. Hence, it sent a demand letter to the Valerios to immediately leave and vacate the subject property and pay reasonable rent. However, petitioners refused to vacate the subject property and to pay rent.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, 7 the spouses Valerio averred that the subject property was mortgaged without their knowledge and consent but through a forged General Power of Attorney. They argued that respondent CPI had no right to possess the subject property because it had no contract, express or implied, with them. Petitioners raised the issue of ownership and maintained that the right to possession cannot be determined without resolving the issue of ownership, i.e., the validity of the foreclosure sale, Certificate of Sale and the consolidation of title in CPI's name. Hence, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court:
On December 7, 2006, the MeTC rendered its Decision in favor of respondent CPI and ordered petitioners to immediately vacate and surrender possession of the subject property, to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant SPS. GAUDENCIO C. VALERIO AND AMPARO R. VALERIO, ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate and surrender possession of the premises located at No. 8 Gentleness Street, Multinational Village, Parañaque City, to the plaintiff/representative(s) and to pay the said plaintiff as follows:
1) To pay the reasonable amount of rent in the amount of P10,000.00 per month from date of demand until fully vacated;
2) Attorneys fees in the amount of P20,000.00 (sic)
3) Cost of suit.
The counterclaim is ordered dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 8
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On June 4, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing respondent CPI's complaint for unlawful detainer, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is granted. The questioned decision is hereby set aside and the instant complaint ordered DISMISSED. (sic)
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 9
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
On July 22, 2009, the CA rendered its assailed Decision reversing and setting aside the June 4, 2007 Decision of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision dated June 4, 2007 in Civil Case No. 07-008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 195, is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. A new judgement is rendered reinstating the decision dated December 7, 2006 in Civil Case No. 2003-518 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 77.
SO ORDERED. 10
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners which was denied by the CA in its October 27, 2009 Resolution.
Proceedings in G.R. No. 223823:
Meanwhile, Civil Case No. 03-0231 was instituted by the spouses Valerio against CPI, Ma. Luz F. Lopez, Anne Reina Lou Escaran, Fernando Reyes, Renato G. Avendano and Digna V. Caspe before the RTC, Branch 195 of Parañaque City with regard to the ownership of the subject property and the validity of the execution of the real estate mortgage (REM) over the subject property with CPI. The RTC in its February 1, 2012 Decision declared null and void the General Power of Attorney, the Deed of REM and the foreclosure sale, and ordered. the cancellation of Certificate of Title No. 155980 in the name of CPI. Consequently, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 68332 covering the subject property in the name of the spouses Valerio was reinstated.
Upon appeal before the CA which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98397, the appellate court in its August 28, 2015 Decision and Mach 15, 2016 Resolution affirmed with modification as to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees the February 1, 2012 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 03-0231. Thereafter, CPI elevated the case before this Court which was docketed as G.R. No. 223823. On December 7, 2016, this Court issued a Resolution denying CPI's petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error, to wit:
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari and the comment thereon, the Court further resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. 11
On March 22, 2017, the case entitled Credit Pilipinas, Inc. et al. v. Spouses Gaudencio C. Valerio and Amparo R. Valerio docketed as G.R. No. 223823 became final and executory.
Our Ruling
With this Court's December 7, 2016 Resolution in G.R. No. 223823 affirming the CA's August 28, 2015 Decision and March 15, 2016 Resolution upholding the spouses Valerio's rightful ownership and possession of the subject property, the issue in this ejectment case as to who between the spouses Valerio and CPI has the right to possess the subject property is rendered moot and academic. This Court cannot anymore pass on the merits of this case as there would be no useful purpose for such.
As can be gleaned from the records, the spouses Valerio interposed as a defense in this ejectment case the issue of ownership and raised the nullity of the General Power of Attorney which resulted in the mortgage of the subject property to CPI. With the conclusion of Civil Case No. 03-0231 which invalidated the General Power of Attorney and the real estate mortgage, the issue of ownership as well as possession had finally been settled. Thus, there is no longer any justiciable controversy that may be resolved by this Court, that is, the issue of possession, as it was already definitively settled with the finality of Civil Case No. 03-0231.
Finally, this Court finds no exceptional reason, such as a grave violation of the Constitution; the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involved; when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and the case is capable of repetition yet evading review, 12 to further dwell on the issue of right of possession when the same was already passed upon and settled with finality in G.R. No. 223823.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED tier being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-62.
2. CA rollo, pp. 269-279; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza and Antonio L. Villamor.
3.Id. at 317-319.
4.Records, pp. 842-849; penned by Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal.
5.Id. at 685-689; penned by Judge Donato H. De Castor.
6.Id. at 1-6.
7.Id. at 21-38.
8.Id. at 689.
9.Id. at 849.
10.Supra note 2.
11.Credit Pilipinas, Inc. et al. v. Spouses Gaudencio C. Valerio and Amparo R. Valerio, G.R. No. 223823, December 7, 2016.
12.Republic v. Moldex Realty, Inc., 780 Phil. 553, 561 (2016).