National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation v.

Florita C. Tarobal,

G.R. No. 206345, 24 January 2017,

Second Division, Peralta.

NHM purchased a loan agreement from a bank. The

owner failed to pay his arrears so NHM foreclosed the real
estate mortgage. NHM was adjudged the highest bidder at
the auction sale. The owner failed to redeem the property
within one year.

NHM filed a Writ of Possession of the property in order to

sell it to a third person. Flo filed a Motion for
Reconsideration alleging that: (1) she had bought the
property from the owner; (2) had already made
improvements on the property; and (3) was not notified of
the public auction nor the foreclosure proceedings.

The RTC issued a Writ of Possession in favor of NHM. Flo

then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the
CA which found no grave abuse of discretion but ordered
NHM to give priority to Flo to re-acquire the property on
account of the improvements introduced by Flo and her
earnest manifestation to recover said property.

Was the CA decision within the scope of the Writ of

Certiorari under Rule 65?
 No. In the petition for certiorari, the authority of the
CA is limited to ruling upon the issue of whether or not the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the
petition for the issuance of writ of possession. The issue as
to whether there was compliance with the notice
requirement in the conduct of foreclosure sale is not
proper in the petition for certiorari.

Whether the trial court committed a mistake in

deciding the case on the merits is an issue way beyond
the competence of respondent appellate court to pass
upon in a certiorari proceeding.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62492?
s_params=Lta35XzFdRJYB6rf4hDo