Arquiza vs.

CA and Equitable PCI Bank

498 Phil. 793

FACTS: Spouses Arquiza, obtained a loan from private respondent Equitable PCI-Bank for P2.5 million.
To secure the payment, the petitioners executed a Real Estate Mortgage over their parcel of land. The
spouses defaulted in the payment of their loan so the private respondent filed a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. A public auction was held in accordance with Act No. 3135, as
amended by Act No. 4118, during which the mortgaged property, together with all the improvements
existing thereon, was sold to the private respondent as the highest bidder. Accordingly, a Certificate of
Sale over the property was issued in favor of the private respondent. Following the expiry date of the
redemption period without the petitioners having exercised their right to redeem the property, the private
respondent consolidated its ownership over the subject property.

The petitioners filed a complaint against the private respondent and the sheriffs with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the declaration of the nullity of the promissory note, real estate mortgage
and the foreclosure sale and damages with a plea for injunctive relief for the suspension redemption period.
Private respondent demanded that the petitioners vacate and surrender possession of the subject property,
but the latter refused to do so. This compelled the private respondent to file an Ex Parte Petition for Issuance
of a Writ of Possession, also with RTC in Quezon City.

RTC: granted the issuance of Writ of Possession.

The petitioners appealed the decision to the CA alleging that: 1) The lower court (LC) erred in granting the
ex parte petition, 2) That the LC failed to apply the rule on litis pendentia, 3) the LC ignored the rule on
forum shopping in an initiatory pleading like the ex-parte petition in this case.

CA: affirm the appealed decision. The petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was not an initiatory
pleading; hence, a certification against forum shopping was not necessary. The appellate court also held
that there could be no forum shopping because a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is but an
incident in the transfer of title.

MR denied, thus this petition for review on certiorari with the CA.

ISSUE: W/N the petition for Issuance of writ of Possession is an initiatory pleading? W/N the case falls
under litis pendentia? W/N the rule on forum shopping was violated?

RULING: Petition is denied for lack of merit. The ruling of CA is correct.

1) The ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading. Although the
private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition, it is, nonetheless, a motion. What
distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party
executing it, but rather its purpose. The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but to bring
a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. A motion
is not an independent right or remedy, but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause.
An application for a writ of possession is a mere incident in the registration proceeding. Hence,
although it was denominated as a petition, it was in substance merely a motion.

It bears stressing that Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, specifically provides that
the buyer at public auction may file a verified petition in the form of an ex parte motion.
2) No litis pendentia in this case. Well established is the rule that after the consolidation of title in the
buyers name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.
Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function. The issuance
of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a
judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for
annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.

3) No forum shopping. The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping is
whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another. 34 In other words, when litis pendentia or res judicata does not
exist, neither can forum shopping exist

NOTE: The requisites of litis pendentia are the following:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other. And one element of res judicata is that the judgment or order must
be on the merits of the case.