G.R. No.

196864               July 8, 2015 19 December 2003 that they received the proceeds of the loan, as evidenced by the Promissory
Note. In other words, there is no principal obligation upon which the ancillary contract of
mortgage was attached to.
SPOUSES VICTOR P. DULNUAN and JACQUELINE P. DULNUAN, Petitioners,
vs.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Respondent. Upon motion of the Spouses Dulnuan, Civil Case No. 08-CV-2470 was consolidated before
Branch 63 of the RTC wherein the LRC Case No. 08-60 was pending. After summary hearing,
the court a quoin an Order dated 5 November 2008, issued a Temporary Restraining Order and
DECISION
set the hearing for the issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Both parties proceeded to
adduce evidence for and against the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
PEREZ, J.:
Finding an imperative need to protect and preserve the rights of the Spouses Dulnuan during the
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioners Spouses Victor Dulnuan and pendency of the principal action, the RTC issued an Order dated 3 December 2008, enjoining
Jacqueline Dulnuan (Spouses Dulnuan) seeking to reverse and set aside the 14 January 2011 Metrobank from taking possession of the subject property until the final disposition of the
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals. and its 29 April 2011 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108628. annulment of mortgage case. The decretal portion of the Order reads:
The assailed decision and resolution reversed the 3 December 2008 Order of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, which, in turn, enjoined the extrajudicial foreclosure sale
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding compelling reason at this point in time to grant
or' a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-46390 registered under
for the application for preliminary injunction, the same is hereby granted upon posting of
the name of the Spouses Dulnuan. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision
preliminary injunction bond in the amount of ₱200,000.00 duly approved by the court, let the writ
reads:
of preliminary injunction be issued to take effect pendente lite, commanding the [Metrobank]
including its agents and representatives, as well as persons acting under its control, supervision,
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated December 3, 2008 of the Regional instruction, order or authorization, to desist from entering, occupying, possessing, using, or from
Trial Court, Branch 63 of La Trinidad, Benguet in Civil Case No. 08-CV-2470 which granted [the performing any act of possession and occupation of the aforedescribed property, as well as from
Spouses Dulnuan’s] application for writ of preliminary injunction and the RTC’s Order dated causing the cancellation of the existing transfer certificate of title of the [Spouses Dulnuan] and
March 24, 2009, which denied [Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company’s] motion for from securing in lieu thereof a transfer certificate of title over the aforedescribed property in its
reconsideration, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.4 favor.10

The Facts In an Order dated 24 March 2009, the RTC refused to reconsider its earlier Order.

On several occasions, the Spouses Dulnuan obtained loans from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in enjoining its taking of possession over the
Company (Metrobank), the total of which reached the sum ₱3,200,000.00, as evidenced by subject realties, Metrobank filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
promissory notes executed by them.5
On 14 January 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision reversing the questioned Orders
As a security for the loan obligations, the Spouses Dulnuan executed a Real Estate Mortgage and declared that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is unjustified under the
(REM) over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 46390 registered under their names and circumstances. The appellate court made a pronouncement that as the highest bidder at the
located at La Trinidad, Benguet with an area of 392 square meters (subject auction sale, Metrobank is entitled to occupy the subject property, and, any question regarding
property).6 Subsequently, however, the Spouses Dulnuan incurred default and therefore the loan the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure thereof shall not preclude the purchaser from
obligations became due and demandable. taking possession. The disquisition the Court of Appeals reads:

On 22 April 2008, Metrobank filed an application for extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings over WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated December 3, 2008 of the Regional
the subject property before the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. After due notice and publication, Trial Court, Branch 63 of La Trininidad, Benguet in Civil Case 08-CV-2470 which granted
the mortgaged property was sold at a public auction where Metrobank was declared as the respondents’ application for writ of preliminary injunction and the RTC’s Order dated March 24,
highest bidder after tendering the bid of ₱6,189,000.00, as shown in the Certificate of Sale.7 In 2009 which denied [Metrobank’s] motion for reconsideration are hereby RESERVED and SET
order to validly effect the foreclosure, a copy of the said Notice of Public Auction Sale was ASIDE.11
posted on the bulletin boards of Barangay Betag, Municipal Hall of La Trinidad, Benguet,
Provincial Capitol Benguet.8 Before the expiration of the one-year redemption period allowed by
For lack of merit, the Spouses Dulnuan’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of
law, Metrobank filed a Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Possession docketed as LRC Case
Appeals in a Resolution dated 29 April 2011.
No. 08-60 which was raffled before Branch 63 of the RTC.9

The Spouses Dulnuan is now before this Court via this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
On 30 September 2008, the Spouses Dulnuan instituted a Complaint seeking the issuance of a
seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution on the following grounds:
temporary restraining order and preliminary and final injunction and, for the annulment of extra-
judicial foreclosure and real estate mortgage before the RTC of LaTrinidad, Benguet, Branch 10,
which case was docketed as Civil Case No. 08-CV-2470. The complaint alleged that the I.
mortgage constituted over the property is null and void because at the time the agreement was
entered on 18October 2000, no contract of loan was yet executed by the parties. It was only on
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN Thus, to be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show that (1) there exists a clear and
OVERLOOKING THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be
POSSESSION WAS FILED DURING THE REDEMPTION PERIOD AND NO BOND HAD BEEN enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and
POSTED BY RESPONDENT TO WARRANT ITS ISSUANCE; AND paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.17

II. As such, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual
existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. The requisites of a
valid injunction are the existence of the right and its actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN
entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against the right must be
OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT CIVIL CASE NO. 08-CV-2470 AND LRC CASE NO. 08-60
shown.18
WERE CONSOLIDATED.12

The Court's Ruling Extant from the pleadings of the parties is the failure of the Spouses Dulnuan to
establish the essential requisites for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
The Court is urged to resolve the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dissolving
the writ of preliminary injunction issued against Metrobank. The writ of preliminary injunction First. The court a quo cannot enjoin Metrobank, at the instance of the Spouses Dulnuan, from
enjoined Metrobank from entering, occupying, possessing, using, or performing any act of taking possession of the subject property simply because the period of redemption has not yet
possession and occupation over the subject property. Without going into the merits of this case, expired. As the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale upon whom a certificate sale was issued
the Court will confine itself in the determination of the propriety of the preliminary injunction, by the sheriff, Metrobank has the right to be placed in possession of the subject property even
such being a preservative remedy for the protection of substantive rights or interests, is not a during the redemption period provided that the necessary amount of bond is posted. As
cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit.13 elucidated by the Court in Spouses Tolosa v. United Coconut Planters Bank:19

A writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the A writ of possession is simply an order by which the sheriff is commanded by the court to place
protection of substantive rights and interests.1âwphi1 An application for the issuance of a writ of a person in possession of a real or personal property. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
preliminary injunction and/or TRO may be granted upon the filing of a verified application amended, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale either
showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.14 The purpose of injunction is to (1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond; or (2) after the lapse of the
prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims redemption period, without need of a bond. Within the one-year redemption period, the
can be thoroughly studied and educated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the purchaser may apply for a writ of possession by filing a petition in the form of an ex parte motion
merits of the case is heard fully.15 under oath, in the registration or cadastral proceedings of the registered property. The law
requires only that the proper motion be filed, the bond approved and no third person is involved.
After the consolidation of title in the buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the
The status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a property, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. In the latter case, the
controversy.16 The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. A right of possession becomes absolute because the basis thereof is the purchaser’s ownership of
preliminary injunction should not establish new relations between the parties, but merely the property.
maintain or re-establish the pre-existing relationship between them.
It is an established rule that the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the
Pertinent are the provisions of Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, enumerates the grounds possession of the property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the same either
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, to wit: during (with bond) or after the expiration (without bond) of the redemption period therefor.20 The
non-expiration of the period of redemption shall not preclude the purchaser from taking
SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.— A preliminary injunction may be possession of the property provided that the necessary is posted. The buyer can in fact demand
granted when it is established: possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond in
accordance with Section 721 of Act No. 3135, as amended. In the case at bar, Metrobank
manifested its willingness to post a bond but its application for the issuance of the writ of
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such possession was unjustly denied by the RTC.
relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited
period or perpetually; Second. The pendency of the action assailing the validity of the mortgage should not bar the
issuance of the writ of possession.1âwphi1 A pending action for annulment of mortgage or
foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession. 22 Regardless of the pendency of
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts such suit, the purchaser remains entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice, of course, to
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or the eventual outcome of the pending annulment case. Emphatic to the point is the ruling of the
Court in Spouses Fortaleza v. Spouses Lapitan:23
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do,
or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the Lastly, we agree with the CA that any question regarding the regularity and validity of the
rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be raised as a justification for opposing the petition for the
to render the judgment ineffectual. issuance of the writ of possession. The said issues may be raised and determined only after the
issuance of the writ of possession. Indeed, "[t]he judge with whom an application for writ of
possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its
foreclosure." The writ issues as a matter of course. "The rationale for the rule is to allow the
purchaser to have possession of the foreclosed property without delay, such possession being
founded on the right of ownership."

Without prejudice to the final disposition of the annulment case, Metrobank is entitled to the writ
of possession and cannot be barred from enjoying the property, possession being one of the
essential attributes of ownership.

Third. While the grant or denial of the preliminary injunction rests on the sound discretion of the
court taking cognizance of the case, and judicial discretion of the court in injunctive matters
should not be interfered with,24 in the absence of clear and legal right, however, the issuance of
a writ of injunction constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.25

Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in
an arbitrary despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to
an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.26 The burden is thus on petitioner to show in his application that there is
meritorious ground for the issuance of TRO in his favor. 27 When the complainant’s right is
doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of
injunctive writ is improper. 28 Herein, the Spouses Dulnuan failed to show that they have clear
and unmistakable right to the issuance of writ in question.

In fine, we find that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in reversing the injunction
issued by the RTC. The record shows that Metrobank caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgage on the subject realties as a consequence of the Spouses Dulnuan's default on their
mortgage obligation. As the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, Metrobank can exercise its
right of possession over the subject realty, and the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction,
enjoining the bank from occupying the property in question, is erroneous. WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is hereby . DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 14
January 2011 and Resolution dated 29 April 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
108628 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DID NOT PROVE THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED, UNDER THE RULES THE
HIGHEST BIDDER CAN APPLY FOR A WRIT OF POSSESSION.