DIRECT FUNDERS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

JUDGE CELSO D. LAVINA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC- Pasig City,

DECISION
PARDO, J.:
The Case
The petition at bar[1] seeks to review the decision[2] of the Court of Appeals[3]
dismissing the petition assailing the ruling of the trial court issuing a writ of preliminary
injunction that restrained a writ of possession issued by a coordinate court.[4]
The Facts
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
"It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary
injunction, despite clear and express prayer in the Amended Complaint (Rollo, p. 23)
that private respondent Kambiak Y. Chan, Jr. sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction. This is again despite the fact this error was brought to respondent
Judge's attention denied the Motion for Reconsideration on May 29, 1998 justifying the
issuance thereof due to petitioner's alleged misappreciation of facts and reliefs sought
for.
"Culled from the records of the case, the action a quo is for annulment of documents,
reconveyance, recovery of possession, damages with application for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order.
"During the hearing for the issuance of temporary restraining order, it was made clear
to the respondent Judge that the property in question was occupied by the petitioner by
virtue of a writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 157 in
LRC Case No. R-5475 in a petition for the issuance of writ of possession thereof way
back on October 23, 1997 (Rollo, p. 22). Despite the lawful order of a coordinate and coequal court, the respondent Judge, presiding Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 71,
issued the questioned orders to restore possession to private respondent Chan, alleging
an obviously grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction (Rollo, p. 38).
"On the same date on December 8, 1997, the temporary restraining order (TRO) was

issued, the Court Sheriff IV Cresencio Rabello, Jr. implemented the TRO and submitted
the Return on December 9, 1997 (Rollo, p. 39).
"Then, on January 21, 1998, the respondent Judge issued the questioned order granting
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (Rollo, p. 14) who subsequently denied
the petitioner's motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss and the very
urgent motion for reconsideration on February 16, 1998.
"On May 29, 1998, the motion for inhibition and the motion to dissolve the writ of
preliminary injunction were also denied (Rollo, p. 18)."[5]
On August 5, 1998, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and
prohibition assailing the trial court's issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.[6]
On September 28, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision dismissing the
petition ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction that did not
interfere with the writ of possession of a coordinate court.[7]
On October 19, 1999, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for
reconsideration of the decision.[8]
On February 2, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion stating that the
arguments advanced were "mere reiteration and restatements of those contained in
their pleadings x x x."[9]
Hence, this appeal.[10]
The Issue
The issue raised is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's ruling
issuing a writ of injunction restraining a writ of possession in another case to place
respondent back in possession of the subject property.
In other words, the issue is who between petitioner and respondent Kambiak Y. Chan, Jr.
has a better right to the possession of the subject property?
The Court's Ruling
We resolve the issue in favor of petitioner.
The conditional sale agreement was the only document that the respondent presented
during the summary hearing of the application for a temporary restraining order before
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City.[11]

We find that the conditional sale agreement is officious and ineffectual. First, it was not
consummated. Second, it was not registered and duly annotated on the Transfer
Certificate of Title (No. 12357) covering the subject property. Third, it was executed
about eight (8) years after the execution of the real estate mortgage over the subject
property.
To emphasize, the mortgagee (United Savings Bank) did not give its consent to the
change of debtor. It is a fundamental axiom in the law on contracts that a person not a
party to an agreement cannot be affected thereby. Worse, not only was the conditional
sale agreement executed without the consent of the mortgagee-creditor, United Savings
Bank, the same was also a material breach of the stipulations of the real estate
mortgage over the subject property. The real estate mortgage, in part, provides:
"(j) The MORTGAGOR shall neither lease the mortgaged property/ies, nor sell or dispose
of the same in any manner, without the written consent of the MORTGAGEE. However, if
notwithstanding this stipulation and during the existence of this mortgage, the
property/ies herein mortgaged, or any portion thereof, is/are leased or sold, x x x. It
shall also be incumbent upon the MORTGAGOR to make it a condition of the sale or
alienation that the vendee, or any other party in whose favor the alienation is made,
shall recognize as first lien the existing mortgage or encumbrance in favor of the
MORTGAGEE, as well as any new modified mortgage covering the same properties to be
executed by said MORTGAGOR in favor of the MORTGAGEE, and shall thereafter agree,
promise and bind himself to recognize and respect any extension of the terms of the
original mortgage granted by the MORTGAGEE in favor of the MORTGAGOR and such
extended mortgage shall be considered as prior to such encumbrance as the original
mortgage. It is also further understood that should the MORTGAGOR sell, transfer or in
any manner alienate or encumber the mortgaged property/ies in violation of this
agreement, he/she shall be liable for damages to the MORTGAGEE."[12]
The conditions of the conditional sale agreement were not fulfilled, hence, respondent's
claim to the subject property was as heretofore stated ineffectual. Article 1181 of the
Civil Code reads:
"Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the
extinguishments or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of
the event which constitutes the condition."
On the other hand, petitioner's right to the subject property is based on the following:
1. The real estate mortgage constituted by the Sps. Espino duly registered and
annotated on TCT No. 12357 covering the subject property.

2. The Deed of Assignment dated 15 January 1997 executed by UCPB Savings Bank
(formerly United Savings Bank) whereby it conveyed its rights as mortgagee in favor of
the petitioner.
3. The Deed of Assignment of Right of Redemption dated 15 January 1997, executed by
the Sps. Espino wherein they assigned their right of redemption over the subject
property to UCPB Savings Bank and the latter's successors-in-interest.
4. The Certificate of Sale dated 29 May 1997 executed by the sheriff, the affidavit of
consolidation of ownership dated July 1997 (denominated as Doc. No. 490; Page No. 99.
Book No. CLVII, Series of 1997 in the Notarial Books of Erlinda B. Espejo, Notary Public
for Quezon City) and TCT No. 8559-R subsequently issued to Petitioner.
5. The Order dated 23 October 1997 of Branch 157, RTC, Pasig City (LRC No. R-5475)
and the Turn-over/Delivery of Possession of the sheriff in the said LRC case.
In Soriano v. Bautista,[13] the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated May 30, 1956
executed by the mortgagors contained a stipulation giving the mortgagee the option to
purchase the land subject of the mortgage on any date within the 2-year period of the
mortgage. The mortgagee subsequently decided to buy the land pursuant to this
stipulation. We ruled:
"Appellants contend that, being mortgagors, they cannot be deprived of the right to
redeem the mortgaged property, because such right is inherent in and inseparable from
this kind of contract. The premise of the contention is not entirely accurate. While the
transaction is undoubtedly a mortgage and contains the customary stipulation
concerning redemption, it carries the added special provision aforequoted, which
renders the mortgagors' right to redeem defeasible at the election of the mortgages.
There is nothing illegal or immoral in this. It is simply an option to buy, sanctioned by
Article 1479 of the Civil Code, which states: "A promise to buy and sell a determinate
thing for a price certain is binding upon the promisor if the promise is supported by a
consideration distinct from the price." [14]
In view of all of the foregoing, it is inexorable to conclude that petitioner, not the
respondent, has a better right to the possession of subject property.
The Judgment
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals[15]
and the order denying reconsideration.
In lieu thereof, the Court renders judgment dismissing the case below, Civil Case No.
66554 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, including the counterclaims.

No costs.
SO ORDERED.