Rule on Consolidation of Cases:

When Is Consolidation Of Cases Proper?

The rationale behind consolidation of cases is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against
oppression or abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and to simplify the work
of the trial court; in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to
the parties-litigants. Thus, if these avowed purposes will not be served, consolidation, albeit
discretionary on the part of the judge, should not be allowed.
In the case of Philippine National Bank vs. Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc. (G.R. No.
183211, 5 June 2009), the Supreme Court applied the foregoing principle when confronted
with the issue of proper consolidation of cases.
Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc. (Gotesco) obtained a loan from several banking
institutions, including Philippine National Bank (PNB), secured by a mortgage over its real
property located in Pasig City. When Gotesco failed to pay its obligation, the mortgaged
property was foreclosed. Said property was auctioned and was awarded to PNB as the
highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was then issued and registered with the Register of
Deeds.
The one-year redemption period expired without Gotesco exercising its right of redemption.
Accordingly, PNB consolidated the title in its name. Thereafter, PNB filed an Ex-Parte Petition
for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, docketed as LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG, and was raffled
to RTC of Pasig City, Branch 155 (RTC-Branch 155).
Gotesco filed a motion to consolidate LRC Case No. R-6695-PSG with its Complaint for
Annulment of Foreclosure Proceedings, Specific Performance and Damages against PNB,
docketed as Civil Case No. 68139, and pending with the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 161 (RTCBranch 161).
RTC-Branch 155 granted Gotescos Motion for Consolidation and ordered the records of LRC
Case No. R-6695-PSG forwarded to RTC- Branch 161 where Civil Case No. 68139 is pending.
PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the RTC-Branch 155. On appeal
to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC-Branch 155. PNB
moved for reconsideration of the decision, but the CA denied the same.
When the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, the High Tribunal ruled in favor of PNB.
The Supreme Court held that the main objective of consolidation of cases is to promote a
more expeditious and less expensive resolution of a controversy. In the PNB case, the
consolidation of PNBs Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession with Gotescos Complaint
for Annulment of Foreclosure Proceeding, Specific Performance and Damages was not in
accord with such objective. On the contrary, it defeated the very rationale of consolidation.

The record shows that PNBs Petition was filed on May 26, 2006, and remains pending after
three (3) years, despite the summary nature of the Petition. Obviously, the consolidation
only delayed the issuance of the desired writ of possession. Further, it prejudiced PNBs
right to take immediate possession of the property and gave Gotesco undue advantage, for
the latter continues to possess the property during the pendency of the consolidated cases,
despite the fact that title to the property is no longer in its name.
It should be stressed that Gotesco was well aware of the expiration of the period to redeem
the property. Yet, it did not exercise its right of redemption. Instead, it filed a case for
Annulment of Foreclosure, Specific Performance, and Damages and thereafter moved that
PNBs Petition be consolidated with the action instituted by Gotesco - a transparent ploy to
delay, if not to prevent, PNB from consolidating its title and taking possession of the
property it acquired at a public auction several years ago.
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that, upon the expiration of the redemption
period, the right of the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed property becomes
absolute. Thus, the mere filing of an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession
would suffice, and there is no bond required since possession is a necessary consequence of
the right of the confirmed owner. It is a settled principle that a pending action for annulment
of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession.
Indisputably, the consolidation of PNBs petition with GOTESCOs complaint runs counter to
this well-established doctrine. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered that PNBs Petition
for Issuance of Writ of Possession and Gotescos Complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure,
Specific Performance and Damages be heard independently. (Atty. Archivald F. De Mata)