Theory Of The Case - Facts.docx

Theory of the Case Facts: 1. Petitioners heirs of Jose Peñaflor namely: Jose Peñaflor, Jr., and Virginia P. Agatep, represented by Jessica P. Agatep, are of legal age, Filipino, and may be served with legal processes and notices by this Honorable Court; 2. Respondents heirs of Artemio and Lydia dela Cruz, namely: Mariou, Juliet, Romeo, Ryan, and Ariel, all surnamed dela Cruz, are of legal age, Filipino, residents of No. 11 Ifugao St., Brgy. Barretto, Olongapo City, and may be served with legal processes and notices by this Honorable Court; 3. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage against Nicolasa dela Cruz, Artemio’s mother, after failure to pay debt in due and eventually executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership after the redemption period has expired; 4. On November 19, 1993, Nicolasa still occupies the property forcing the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners to file a petition for the ex parte issuance of a writ of possession, no appeal from Nicolasa; 5. Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a complaint for annulment of judgement before the RTC claiming that he is the rightful owner of the said property having the right adverse to Nicolasa but was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; 6. On April 1998, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a separate complaint for ejectment in the subject property against his sister, Carmelita, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Olongapo City and the complaint was granted; 7. On June 27, 2008, the RTC issued an Amended Order granting predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners’ application for a writ of possession anew and a Notice to Vacate dated July 11, 2008 against predecessor-in-interest of the respondents; 8. On July 23, 2008, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a motion to quash the writ of possession and notice to vacate followed by a separate motions to quash and a joint motion for reconsideration by the respondents but were all denied by the RTC; 9. On June 18, 2009, the respondents filed another motion praying that the implementation of the writ of possession be held in abeyance as they are third persons in actual possession of the subject property but still denied by the RTC;

10. Seeking for relief, respondents escalated the case to Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari and on February 18, 2011. CA granted the petition where petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but denied; 11. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari of the plaintiff before the Court the decision made by CA. Respondents are in defense on the said petition.