0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
120 просмотров2 страницы
1. LZK Holdings obtained a loan from Planters Bank in 1996 and secured it with property, but failed to pay. Planters Bank foreclosed and purchased the property in 1998.
2. LZK Holdings sued to annul the foreclosure. The courts upheld the foreclosure but cancelled Planters Bank's consolidated title.
3. Planters Bank applied for a writ of possession. The courts upheld the writ of possession, finding that Planters Bank had the right to possess the property during the redemption period based on prior rulings, and that LZK Holdings' arguments did not present reversible errors.
Исходное описание:
Property Case Researched
Оригинальное название
Lzk Holdings and Development Corporation vs. Planters Development Bank
1. LZK Holdings obtained a loan from Planters Bank in 1996 and secured it with property, but failed to pay. Planters Bank foreclosed and purchased the property in 1998.
2. LZK Holdings sued to annul the foreclosure. The courts upheld the foreclosure but cancelled Planters Bank's consolidated title.
3. Planters Bank applied for a writ of possession. The courts upheld the writ of possession, finding that Planters Bank had the right to possess the property during the redemption period based on prior rulings, and that LZK Holdings' arguments did not present reversible errors.
1. LZK Holdings obtained a loan from Planters Bank in 1996 and secured it with property, but failed to pay. Planters Bank foreclosed and purchased the property in 1998.
2. LZK Holdings sued to annul the foreclosure. The courts upheld the foreclosure but cancelled Planters Bank's consolidated title.
3. Planters Bank applied for a writ of possession. The courts upheld the writ of possession, finding that Planters Bank had the right to possess the property during the redemption period based on prior rulings, and that LZK Holdings' arguments did not present reversible errors.
On December 16, 1996, LZK Holdings obtained a 40 million peso loan from Planters Bank and secured it with a Real Estate Mortgage over its 589 m lot in La Union. Due to LZK Holdings failure to pay its loan, it was extra judicially foreclosed by Planters Bank and was sold at a public auction on September 21, 1998. During the auction sale, Planters Bank emerged as the highest bidder and thereafter its certificate of sale was registered. LZK Holdings filed a complaint on April 5, 1999 for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure and prayed for the issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the consolidation of title over the lot by Planters Bank. On the other hand, Planters Bank filed an ex-parte motion on December 27, 1999 for the issuance of a writ of possession with the RTC-San Fernando. 3 days before the expiration of LZK Holdings redemption period, the RTC-Makati issued a TRO effective for 20 days enjoining Planters Bank from consolidating its title over the property. The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for the same purpose was done after the posting of LZK Holdings of a Php40,000.00 bond. But on April 24, 2000, Planters Bank succeeded in consolidating its ownership over the property but the proceeding for its ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession was suspended by the RTC-San Fernando in view of the issuances of RTC-Makati. Planters Bank moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Upon motion of LZK Holdings, the RTC-Makati declared as null and void the consolidated title of Planters Bank and this decision was likewise affirmed by the CA on February 26, 2004. It was elevated to the SC but the SC sustained the decision of CA on September 13, 2004. Planters Bank likewise appealed the decision of RTC-San Fernando which held in abeyance the resolution of its ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession and the CA granted its appeal and annulled the assailed order of RTC-San Fernando. LZK Holdings elevated the matter to the SC but SC on April 27, 2007 affirmed the decision of CA and decreed that Planters Bank is entitled to apply for a writ of possession as the purchaser of the property in the foreclosure sale during the redemption period. SC further emphasized that given the ministerial duty of San Fernando RTC to issue the writ; it should have acted on the ex parte petition. According to the SC, an injunction is not allowed to prohibit the issuance of a writ of possession neither does the pending case for annulment of foreclosure sale, mortgage contract, promissory notes and damages stay the issuance of said writ. Armed with this pronouncement, Planters Bank filed before the RTC-San Fernando a motion to set ex-parte hearing for the issuance of a writ of possession but LZK Holdings opposed the motion. This opposition was denied by the RTC-San Fernando and set the ex parte hearing on April 14, 2008 but on April 8, RTC-San Fernando declared that the scheduled hearing is moot and academic and Planters Bank is granted with its ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court, dismissed the petition for certiorari of LZK Holdings and denied its motion for reconsideration on May 12, 2009. LZK Holdings then filed a motion to the SC for a 30-day extension to file a petition for review reckoned from the date of its receipt of the resolution granting such extension. SC granted the motion on July 15, 2009 but the reckoning period granted shall be counted from the expiration of the original reglementary period. LZK Holdings failed to file their petition within the extended period and pursuant to Sec. 5(a), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court and for lack of reversible error in the assailed judgment of the CA, SC denied the petition. LZK Holdings filed a motion for reconsideration and explained the reason why they werent able to beat the deadline and that is because they were able to hold a copy of the July 15, 2009 resolution on July 29, 2009. On October 13, 2010, SC granted the motion for reconsideration and the petition for review was reinstated.
ISSUES:
LZK Holdings claimed that the writ of possession issued to Planters Bank should be annulled for the following reasons: 1. With the cancellation of Planters Banks consolidated title, LZK Holdings remain to be the registered owner of the property as such Planters Bank have no right to apply for a writ of possession because according to PNB vs. Sanao Marketing Corporation, the right of possession is based on the ownership of the subject property by the applicant; 2. LZK Holdings was deprived of due process because the RTC did not conduct a hearing on Planters Banks motion for the issuance of a writ of possession; 3. The Php2,000,000.00 bond posted by LZK Holdings does not conform with Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135 which mandated that the bond amount shall be equivalent to 12 months use of the subject property which in this case amounted to Php7,801,472.28 at the time the writ was issued.
HELD:
SC finds and stands that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the issuance of a writ of possession by the RTC in favor of Planters Bank. The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment postulates that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. Meaning, LZK Holdings can no longer question Planters Banks right to a writ of possession over the subject property because the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of such particular issue. The pronouncement in PNB vs. Sanao Marketing Corporation is a situation not contemplated within the facts of the present case. SC also made mention that given the ex parte nature of the proceedings for a writ of possession; the RTC did not err in cancelling the scheduled hearing and in granting Planters Banks motion without affording notice to LZK Holdings or allowing it to participate. And lastly, SC explained that the contentions of LZK Holdings that the RTC, in issuing the writ of possession, transgressed Act No. 3135 are untenable. The task of SC in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari is limited, as a jurisdictional matter, to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA. The allegations of incorrect computation of the surety bond involve factual matters within the competence of the trial court to address as this Court is not a trier of facts. Hence the petition is denied and the decision of CA is affirmed.