PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v.

CA, Maria Ang, Blanquita Ang

(Pardo|2000)

PCIBank filed with the RTC a claim from the decedent, Jesus Ang Sr. for payment of a loan account as he
had executed a surety agreement and real estate mortgage to secure a loan by JA Enterprises. PCIBank foreclosed
the mortgage but there was still a deficiency of P2,703,818.12 and attorneys fees of P781,325.22.

Maria Ang, the administratrix of the estate of Jesus Ang opposed PCIBank’s claim on the ground of usurious
interest rates and the deficiency, if collected, would wipe out the entire intestate estate. Jesus’ wife, Blanquita, filed a
motion for leave to intervene in the proceedings, and to exercise the right of redemption, claiming that she had legal
interest in the claims and be unduly prejudiced as past of the property in the promissory notes were her share in the
conjugal partnership to which she is entitled to her ½ share. She alleged she was not part of any of the agreements
between Jesus Ang and PCIBank and due to her poor educational attainment, she was not made aware of or was
privy to business transactions by her husband.
 RTC granted her motion to intervene

Blanquita Ang filed with the RTC for a petition for preliminary injunction to stop consolidation and transferring
of title. PCIBank opposed, saying that the application was premature as it had not received a copy of Ang’s
complaint-in-intervention.
 18 days later, it received a copy of the complaint and filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file a
response
o The RTC reset the date of the hearing to afford petitioner time
o However at the rescheduled hearing, PCIBank asked for another extension but this was denied,
with PCIBank’s counsel walking out of the courtroom. Thus the preliminary injunction was heard
and granted upon the filing of an injunction bond of P10,000.

PCIBank appealed to the CA which issued a TRO to prevent the RTC Judge from conducting further
hearings regarding the case.
 After the TRO was issued, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued to stop any act enforcing the effects of
the foreclosure.
 PCIBank said that in light of the TRO, the enforcement of the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction could
no longer be done, however the CA denied this as well as its supplemental petition for prohibition and
certiorari with preliminary injunction.

P: appealed to the SC assailing the application for preliminary injunction as being premature and that the trial court
has no jurisdiction to issue the writ since it effectively determined the question of ownership over the property which is
beyond the jurisdiction of a probate court. Moreover, the writ was issued despite the TRO by the CA.

R: P’s insistence the hearing for application for injunctive writ should not proceed due to non-joinder of issues is
merely a delaying tactic to force the redemption period to expire. There was no issue of ownership as the titles
showed it belonged to Blanquita Ang as the legal heir of Jose Ang and there was no consolidation yet. Moreover, the
mortgage documents have forged signatures of Blanquita and was not included in a number of documents.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in affirming the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by the RTC

HELD:

1. As to prematurity
NO the application as not premature since PCIBank received a copy of the complaint in intervention on Nov.
23, thus there was time to prepare an answer for the hearing on Dec. 4. In fact, the hearing had been reset and
appropriate notices given but nevertheless, while petitioner’s counsel attended the hearing his motion for extension
was denied. Thus, there was adequate opportunity.
 Motion for extension cannot be presumed to be granted as it is discretionary upon the court

In addition, the ROC does not require for issues to be joined before preliminary injunction may issue. Preliminary
injunction may be granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order as long as
the requisites are fulfilled.

2. As to the issue of ownership

There was no decision regarding ownership as it is only upon expiration of the redemption period, without
the judgement debtor having made us of his right of redemption where ownership of the land is consolidated to the
purchaser. Thus, the properties still belonged to Jesus and Blanquita Ang. The probate court issued the writ to enjoin
petitioner and other concerned parties from enforcing the results of the foreclosure, thus at the time the writ was
issued, there was yet no issue regarding ownership because the period for redemption had not yet lapsed.

Nevertheless, the probate court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a property
which may or may not be included in the estate proceedings, but such determination is provisional in
character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to resolve title.
 Thus, the allegations of Blanquita in that her signatures were forged may be threshed in a separate
proceeding requiring presentation fo clear and convincing evidence.

3. As to the TRO
PCIBank is wrong in its argument that the TRO prevents the writ since the CA later on withdrew the TRO
and sustained the injunction by the RTC. The grant or denial of an injunction rests in the sound discretion of the court.
As there were factual circumstances that necessitated the issuance of the writ, the CA did not err in affirming the
issuance of the injunction