Case Digest: EDWIN SALUSIANO MATUTINA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

EDWIN SALUSIANO MATUTINA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

         Edna Linda Matutina-Cortes (Edna) obtained from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) a loan in the amount of One Million (P1,000,000) Pesos. To secure payment, she mortgaged her parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28714. Edna defaulted in the payment of her obligation, prompting the PNB to subject mortgaged property to public auction through an extra-judicial foreclosure.

      Three days before the scheduled public auction sale, Edna‘s brother, herein petitioner Edwin Salusiano Matutina (Edwin), filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. Edwin alleged in his complaint that the mortgaged property was owned by his now deceased father but that Edna, to his and their other siblings‘ exclusion, had it titled in her name.

            The trial court grant said petition and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued.
Finding that the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court simply adopted the general allegations of the Edwin in his Complaint even if the same were not supported by proof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court‘s decision and denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA gravely abuse its discretion in nullifying RTC‘s order and the issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction

HELD:

A perusal of the records of the case at bar shows, however, that the trial court, in arriving at its “belie[f] that there is need to at least temporarily restrain the defendants . . . ,” just parroted petitioner‘s allegations in his “STATEMENT OF FACTS” in the complaint and in his Affidavit in support of his prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The minutes of a purported “session held on December 19 (sic) 2003” do not show that testimonial or documentary evidence was presented during the session-alleged “summary hearing”on December 18, 2003, the spaces below the therein entries “Testimonial Evidence” and “Documentary Evidence” being blank.
While Edwin attached to his complaint a photocopy of the cancelled TCT No. 24274 in Edna‘s name from which TCT No. 28714 covering the mortgaged lot was (together with TCT No. 28713 covering another lot originally forming part of the property covered by TCT No. 24274) derived, nothing in TCT No. 24274 indicates that Edna acquired it from her and petitioner‘s father, Eduardo Matutina.

And while Edwin attached too to his complaint a photocopy of a SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (SPA) purportedly executed by Edna authorizing him and three others “[t]o come to an agreement as and thereafter to sign for [her] in [her] name to divide the said lot as mentioned in TCT No. 24274,” not only is this SPA a mere photocopy. It is undated, unnotarized. Worse, the phrase “to divide the said lot as mentioned in TCT No. 24274” means just that. Into how many portions the “said lot” was going to be divided or why the “said lot” was being divided or to whom the divided portions of the “said lot” were going to be allotted, ” it cannot be gathered therefrom. It is thus non sequitur to imply that petitioner and the three others mentioned in that SPA were, together with Edna, co-owners of the property covered by TCT No. 24274.

Oddly enough, Edwin does not challenge Edna‘s ownership of the above-said other lot covered by TCT No. 28713 into which TCT No. 24274 was divided, which lot was, by his own information, conveyed to one Editha M. Ramil.

There being then no showing or indication that Edwin had a right to the mortgaged property which may be violated by its sale at public auction, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prayer for and issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.