REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 69
LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN

IN RE: PETITION FOR ISSUANCE

OF WRIT OF POSSESSION OVER
REAL PROPERTY COVERED BY
TCT NO. 026-2020006739 OF THE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF LINGAYEN,
PANGASINAN

LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner, LRC NO. 779
x….……………………………………….x

FORMAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

WITH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE DECISION GRANTING
THE WRIT OF POSSESSION AND WITH URGENT
PRAYER TO ALLOW FILING OF OPPOSITION AND
COUNTER-VAILING EVIDENCE.

MOVANTS-OPPOSITORS, SPOUSES LARRY DE QUINTOS

and HONARIA DE QUINTOS, by and through the undersigned
counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver:

BY WAY OF MANIFESTATION

1. DE GUZMAN LAW OFFICES AND ASSOCIATES respectfully

manifest before this Honorable Court that it is formally

1
 entering its appearance as the retained law firm and counsel
for the SPOUSES-MOVANTS.

2. It is therefore requested that the Honorable Court will please

take note of the entry of appearance of DE GUZMAN LAW
OFFICE AND ASSOCIATES as the counsel of record for
Spouses De Quinto.

3. Further, that a copy of the notices, orders, resolutions and all

other processes issued and to be issued by the Honorable
Court in connection with the instant case be furnished
forthwith to De Guzman Law Offices at the indicated office
address made below.

4. Furthermore, as made mandatory by the Supreme

Court, the Honorable Court will please take notice of the e-
mail address and contact numbers of counsel as indicated
below for purposes of furnishing the court’s processes via
electronic mail, instead of and/or in addition to sending them
by snail mail.

BY WAY OF MOTION

Spouses move for a Reconsideration of the Decision which

granted the Ex-Parte Petition of LBP asking for the issuance of a
Writ of Possession over the real property presently occupied and
which is in the Spouses’ possession.

2
 Here, the petitioner-mortgagee LBP took its own sweet time,
bloating the amount of the loan and purported interests, and,
worst, the mortgagee bank inexplicably and unreasonably
waited for four (4) long years after the foreclosure sale to apply
by ex-parte petition for a writ of possession. In such situation,
it has already been settled that the issuance of the writ
becomes inequitable.

Jurisprudence teaches us that in like situations, the grant of

the writ is not purely ministerial. Crystal, granting the writ
becomes inequitable.

Thusly:

However, the CA noted that in the case

of Barican v. Intermediate Appellate
Court[1 the Supreme Court deemed it
inequitable to issue a writ of possession in favor
of the purchaser in the auction sale. In Barican,
the mortgagee bank waited five years from
the time of the foreclosure before filing a
petition for the issuance of a writ of
2
possession.

1
245 Phil. 316 (1988).
2
JOSE P. JAYAG AND MARILYN P. JAYAG, PETITIONERS, VS. BDO UNIBANK, INC., EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF, AND/OR
ASSIGNED SHERIFF, RESPONDENTS G.R. No. 222503. September 14, 2021.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67645 last visited at the web on 1/20/24.

3
 After the filing of the Petition and after the conduct of an ex-
parte summary hearing that are both unbeknownst by and without
due notice to the spouses who are the occupants and in adverse,
open, and continuous possession of the subject real property, the
Honorable Court issued the questioned Decision on December 21,
2023 which essentially granted Petitioner LBP’s prayer for relief, id
est, the issuance of a Writ of Possession.

The present controversy rises to a consideration of the

constitutional right to due process, a right of the spouses that was
horribly violated by Petitioner LBP whose actuations and
applications for the writ are all shrouded in mystery and calculated
to render Spouses practically inutile and absolutely helpless in
making a timely and adequate objection to the writ. Perforce, the
writ should be nullified and, at the very least, recalled.

For the record, the alleged Notices To Vacate were never

personally received by the spouses. The Bank cannot casually send
them by mail without any explication why they do not deem
prudent to personally serve the same to the spouses.

Sadly, the manner by which the bank officials and officers

tasked to give due notices acted in cloaked stealth, rendered the
spouses totally clueless and ignorant of the legal proceedings. The
cavalier manner speaks of humungous volumes of the Bank’s
duplicity and less than forthright dealings with its borrowers.

4
 There is an abject failure to comply with the substantial and
procedural requirements for LBP’s ex-parte application for Writ of
Possession when it did not make a valid service of due notice to the
spouses who are in possession and who are the very actual and
adverse occupants of the real property subject of the mortgage
especially when the Spouses have questions over the bank’s
computation of the amount of the alleged defaulted loan, interests,
penalties and miscellany of charges.

The rule that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a

purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a
ministerial function after the mortgagor has failed to redeem the
property within the prescribed period, is not without exceptions.

Jurisprudence established the following exceptions to the

general rule:[36] 1) Gross inadequacy of purchase price; [37] 2) A third-
party is claiming right adverse to debtor-mortgagor;[38] and 3)
Failure to pay the surplus proceeds of the sale to mortgagor.[39]

What is more, Spouses have clear and legitimate objections

there being a nullity of the foreclosure sale that is demanding
payment of an unexplained and unsupported huge loan balance
which includes excessive, unconscionable and exorbitant interests.
It is unabashed greed and it is totally opportunistic of Petitioner
when it waited for years before applying for the writ, compounding
interests on interests, obviously moved with the intent to unjustly
enrich itself at the expense of the spouses and in the process
inequitably made astronomical and bloated amounts of the original

5
loan to ensure that the spouses’ redemption of the property and
payment of the loan becomes insanely difficult, if not impossible.

RELIEFS

WHEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES,

it is respectfully prayed that:

1. The Honorable Court will please issue an Order granting

the Motion for Reconsideration by setting aside, reversing
and nullifying the questioned Decision,

2. Instead, an Order will now please be issued granting

forthwith and with utmost dispatch, a recall of the Writ of
Possession, and

3. Accordingly, as due process warrants, the Court will please

allow the spouses sufficient and reasonable time for them to
make and file an informed, adequate and intelligent Formal
Opposition and, thereby, be likewise allowed to recall
Petitioner’s witnesses for cross-examination, and to be
allowed to adduce controverting documentary, object and
testimonial evidence to substantiate their objections to the
writ.

6
 OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable under the premises, are
likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of January 2024

at Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Philippines for the City of Lingayen,
Pangasinan, Philippines.

DE GUZMAN LAW OFFICE

AND ASSOCIATES