[ G.R. NO. 119716. July 31, 2007 ] 555 Phil. 563
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 119716. July 31, 2007 ]
ANTONIA J. GUTANG, PETITIONER, VS. THE DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, MANILA; THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANDALUYONG; ALBERTO LOOYUKO AND JUAN O. UY, RESPONDENTS.[1] R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[2] which seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 35213.[3] At the center of this controversy is a Mandaluyong City property previously covered by TCT No. (450666)-1702 in the name of Linda Mendoza, married to Tomas Mendoza.[4] On April 22, 1977, private respondents Alberto Looyuko and Juan O. Uy filed a complaint for sum of money, docketed as Civil Case No. R-82-5792,[5] against Tomas Mendoza in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 22.[6] On private respondents’ motion, a writ of preliminary attachment was issued over the property. This was annotated on TCT No. (450666)-1702.[7] While the Manila case was pending, petitioner Antonia J. Gutang filed a complaint for sum of money, docketed as Civil Case No. 13122, against Tomas Mendoza in the Court of First Instance (CFI), Branch 4, Iloilo City.[8] The case was decided in favor of petitioner on December 24, 1980.[9] Consequently, a writ of execution was issued in her favor. The Mandaluyong property was levied upon on July 9, 1981[10] and sold in a public auction to petitioner as the highest bidder on October 4, 1984.[11] No redemption was made; hence, petitioner consolidated her title to the property. The final certificate of sale was issued on November 15, 1985.[12] Subsequently, TCT No. (450666)-1702 was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No. 242, was issued in her name.[13] TCT No. 242 contained the liens annotated in TCT No. (450666)-1702, including a mortgage in favor of FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU) dated December 3, 1976[14] and the April 22, 1977 writ of preliminary attachment (relative to Civil Case No. R-82-5792).[15] Meanwhile, on March 4, 1986, the Manila RTC decided Civil Case No. R-82-5792 in favor of private respondents. A writ of execution was then issued in their favor. To satisfy the Mendozas’ judgment obligation, the Mandaluyong property was again levied upon and sold to private respondents as winning bidders in a public auction held on May 8, 1986.[16] The corresponding certificate of sale was issued to them on December 20, 1990[17] and annotated on TCT No. 242. On January 3, 1992, private respondents filed a motion in Civil Case No. R-82-5792 for the issuance of a final deed of sale, cancellation of TCT No. 242 and the issuance of a new title in their names.[18] The Manila RTC granted the motion and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 242 and the issuance of a new title in the names of private respondents.[19] Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City, on February 6, 1992, cancelled TCT No. 242/T-2[20] and issued TCT No. 10107 in the names of private respondents.[21] TCT No. 10107 also contained liens previously annotated on TCT No. (450666)-1702, including the mortgage in favor of FGU.[22] Petitioner appealed the August 30, 1994 order of the Manila RTC to the CA but the appellate court dismissed it.[23] On May 15, 1995, petitioner filed this petition.[24] Petitioner contends that the Manila RTC had no jurisdiction to order the cancellation of petitioner’s title and issue a new one in the names of private respondents.[25] On July 12, 2001, this Court promulgated Looyuko et al. v. Court of Appeals.[26] There, both petitioner and private respondents assailed the validity of the foreclosure proceedings which had been initiated in the meantime by FGU on the basis of the mortgage to it (FGU). The mortgage was annotated on TCT No. (450666)-1702 and carried over to both TCT Nos. 242 and 10107. Both petitioner and private respondents charged that FGU’s failure to implead them as parties nullified the foreclosure on the mortgage of the Mandaluyong property.[27] In Looyuko, we upheld the validity of the foreclosure proceedings and declared that FGU held a lien superior to those of petitioner and private respondents. FGU had the mortgage annotated in its favor on December 3, 1976. On the other hand, private respondents and petitioner were declared “prevailing parties” in their respective complaints against the Mendozas in 1980 (CFI Iloilo) and in 1986 (RTC Manila). Hence, the effects of the 1988 execution[28] in FGU’s favor retroacted to 1976 when the mortgage was annotated.[29] FGU was indeed the rightful transferee of the Mandaluyong property, however, we recognize that petitioner and private respondents, as judgment creditors and junior lien holders, also had interests in the lot, though subordinate to that of FGU. When they purchased the same Mandaluyong property in separate public auctions, petitioner and private respondents acquired it subject to the encumbrances annotated on the TCT. In effect, they acquired not the property itself but the equity of redemption. For this reason, we ordered the cancellation of private respondents’ TCT No. 10107[30] and the issuance of a new one in the name of FGU, subject to the equity of redemption of petitioner and private respondents.[31] WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna, and Garcia, JJ., concur.