Rural Bank of San Mateo Isabela, Inc. vs. Ramales

An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order that is not appealable and may only be assailed through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari upon proof of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the doctrine in Republic vs. Sunvar allowing a Rule 45 petition applies only to final orders, not interlocutory ones. Separately, the issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure ceases to be ministerial only when a third party proves possession adverse to the debtor-mortgagor—meaning the third party holds the property in its own right and not as a successor or transferee of the debtor.

ARSFI is a nonstock, nonprofit educational institution incorporated on June 6, 2002, whose incorporators include spouses Myrvin A. Ramales and Josie A. Ramales. On October 30, 2008, the spouses Ramales executed a Donation Inter Vivos involving TCT Nos. T-335431 and TSC-14700 in favor of ARSFI, which constructed classrooms, libraries, and faculty rooms on the donated properties. Without ARSFI's knowledge, the spouses Ramales executed a real estate mortgage over their properties, including TCT No. TSC-14700, to secure a loan obtained from RBSMI. The spouses Ramales defaulted on the loan, and an auction sale was conducted in which RBSMI emerged as the highest bidder. The two consolidated petitions both involve TSC-14700, the donated property that was also among the foreclosed properties.

ARSFI is a nonstock, nonprofit educational institution incorporated on June 6, 2002. Its incorporators include spouses Myrvin A. Ramales and Josie A. Ramales. On October 30, 2008, the spouses Ramales executed a Donation Inter Vivos involving TCT Nos. T-335431 and TSC-14700 in favor of ARSFI. ARSFI thereafter constructed classrooms, libraries, and faculty rooms on the donated properties.

Without ARSFI's knowledge, the spouses Ramales executed a real estate mortgage over their properties, including TCT No. TSC-14700, to secure a loan they obtained from RBSMI. The spouses Ramales failed to pay the loan, and an auction sale was conducted where RBSMI emerged as the highest bidder.

On September 30, 2016, the spouses Ramales filed a Petition for Annulment of Extra-Judicial Foreclosure Proceedings against RBSMI before RTC Branch 35, Santiago City, Isabela, claiming they had fully paid their loan. The petition sought annulment of two extrajudicial foreclosure sales docketed as EJF No. 2029 (involving TCT Nos. T-19876, T-19875, T-17880-A, and TSC-14700) and EJF No. 2298 (involving TCT No. T-168477). The petition, however, did not indicate the assessed value of the foreclosed properties. RBSMI filed an Answer on November 28, 2016, averring that the spouses had not fully paid their loan, and on March 9, 2017, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, citing the failure to allege the assessed value. RTC Branch 35 denied the motion to dismiss on June 2, 2017 and ordered the spouses Ramales to amend their petition to clarify which foreclosure proceedings were subject of the annulment, invoking Rule 10, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. The motion for reconsideration was denied on August 18, 2017. RBSMI then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, which dismissed it on February 10, 2020, holding that the issue involved a question of law properly raised via a Rule 45 petition directly with the Supreme Court, citing Republic vs. Sunvar. The motion for reconsideration was denied on January 6, 2021.

Meanwhile, as the new owner of the foreclosed properties, RBSMI filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession before RTC Branch 21, which granted the petition on September 3, 2019. Seeking to protect its interest, ARSFI filed an Urgent Motion to Intervene on October 23, 2019, an Opposition with Prayer for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction on October 24, 2019, and an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim on October 28, 2019, through its Corporate Secretary Marjorie De Guzman. ARSFI also filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession, arguing that the writ's issuance was no longer ministerial because ARSFI occupied the donated properties adverse to the spouses Ramales.

RTC Branch 21 denied the Motion to Intervene and the Motion to Quash on February 13, 2020, holding that ARSFI could not be considered a third party holding the donated properties adversely to the spouses Ramales since Josie Ramales is ARSFI's President. On June 2, 2020, the sheriff implemented the writ of possession, prompting ARSFI to file a Motion to Enjoin Sheriff. On July 24, 2020, RTC Branch 21 denied the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion to Enjoin Sheriff, reiterating that ARSFI was not a third party holding the properties by adverse title or right, noting that ARSFI never claimed to have titles to the donated properties and that the donation proved ARSFI was a successor or transferee of the spouses Ramales. ARSFI filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, which denied it on February 22, 2023. The motion for reconsideration was denied on July 26, 2023. The Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of both petitions, they both involving TSC-14700.

• Jurisdiction over the Petition for Annulment (RBSMI): RBSMI asserted that the petition for annulment of foreclosure proceedings is a real action, and the spouses Ramales' failure to indicate the assessed value of the foreclosed properties divests RTC Branch 35 of jurisdiction.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion (RBSMI): RBSMI contended that RTC Branch 35 acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the spouses Ramales to amend their petition instead of dismissing it outright.
• Proper Remedy (RBSMI): RBSMI maintained that since the issue involves an error of jurisdiction rather than an error of judgment, it rightly filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA, and that the Order denying its motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order properly assailed via Rule 65 certiorari.
• Adverse Possession and Legal Title (ARSFI): ARSFI argued that it is an unwitting third party that did not take part in the foreclosure proceedings, that the ex-parte writ of possession is null and void and may not be enforced against it, and that it has legal title over the donated properties through the Deed of Donation and Tax Declarations, holding them adversely to the spouses Ramales in open, exclusive, and continuous possession.
• Corporate Personality (ARSFI): ARSFI bewailed that the CA condoned RTC Branch 21's failure to apply the doctrine of separate corporate personality between ARSFI and Josie Ramales.
• Terceria (ARSFI): ARSFI alternatively argued that even if it is not an adverse party, it is entitled to the benefits of Rule 39, Section 16, and faulted RTC Branch 21 for ignoring its Third-Party Claim.

• Wrong Remedy (Spouses Ramales): The spouses Ramales averred that a Rule 65 petition is an extraordinary remedy and one of last recourse, and that RBSMI failed to show there was no appeal or any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law before resorting to Rule 65.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion (Spouses Ramales): The spouses Ramales contended that even assuming a Rule 65 petition is proper, RBSMI failed to prove that RTC Branch 35 acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
• Jurisdiction Properly Vested (Spouses Ramales): The spouses Ramales retorted that the assessed value of the foreclosed properties may be easily determined from the Tax Declarations appended to the petition, showing a total assessed value exceeding PHP 20,000.00, within RTC Branch 35's jurisdiction.
• Estoppel (Spouses Ramales): The spouses Ramales countered that RBSMI is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of RTC Branch 35 since it submitted itself to the court's jurisdiction by filing an answer before the motion to dismiss.
• Ministerial Duty to Issue Writ (RBSMI, as respondent in G.R. No. 268716): RBSMI retorted that RTC Branch 21 has a ministerial duty to issue an ex-parte writ of possession in its favor after the spouses Ramales failed to redeem the foreclosed properties and after titles were consolidated in its name, and that ARSFI does not hold the donated properties adversely to the spouses Ramales.
• Failure to Establish Legal Interest (RBSMI): RBSMI argued that the denial of ARSFI's Urgent Motion to Intervene is due to ARSFI's own failure to establish its legal and material interest in the case.

• Propriety of Rule 65 vs. Rule 45 (G.R. No. 256021): Whether the CA erred in dismissing RBSMI's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground that RBSMI should have filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Denial of Motion to Dismiss (G.R. No. 256021): Whether RTC Branch 35 acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying RBSMI's motion to dismiss and ordering the spouses Ramales to amend their petition instead.
• Jurisdiction over Real Action (G.R. No. 256021): Whether the spouses Ramales' failure to allege the assessed value of the foreclosed properties in the petition divested RTC Branch 35 of jurisdiction.
• Writ of Possession — Ministerial Duty (G.R. No. 268716): Whether RTC Branch 21 committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession and in denying ARSFI's Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Possession and Motion to Enjoin Sheriff.
• Adverse Possession by Third Party (G.R. No. 268716): Whether ARSFI established that it holds the donated properties adversely to the spouses Ramales, such that the issuance of the writ of possession ceases to be ministerial.
• Intervention (G.R. No. 268716): Whether RTC Branch 21 correctly denied ARSFI's Urgent Motion to Intervene for failure to establish a legal interest in the matter in litigation.

• Propriety of Rule 65 vs. Rule 45: No, the CA erred. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order that is not appealable; the aggrieved party's proper recourse is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, not a Rule 45 petition. The doctrine in Republic vs. Sunvar applies only to final orders, not interlocutory ones.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Denial of Motion to Dismiss: No. RTC Branch 35 acted within the dictates of the Rules of Court in ordering amendment under Rule 10, Section 1, to correct inadequate allegations regarding which foreclosure proceedings were subject of the petition.
• Jurisdiction over Real Action: No, jurisdiction was proper. The failure to allege the assessed value was not fatal because the assessed value was determinable from the Tax Declarations attached to the petition, totaling PHP 92,840.00, well within the RTC's jurisdictional threshold of PHP 20,000.00 outside Metro Manila.
• Writ of Possession — Ministerial Duty: No. The issuance of the writ of possession was ministerial on the part of RTC Branch 21, as none of the exceptions applied; ARSFI failed to prove adverse possession, and the writ's issuance could not be stayed by the pending annulment case.
• Adverse Possession by Third Party: No. ARSFI, as a transferee of the spouses Ramales through donation, did not hold the donated properties in its own right but as a successor; its witnesses never appeared in court to affirm their judicial affidavits, and tax declarations alone are not conclusive evidence of ownership.
• Intervention: No. RTC Branch 21 correctly denied the motion to intervene because ARSFI failed to establish its legal interest over the donated properties, having disregarded multiple opportunities to present evidence, and the right to intervene rests on the sound discretion of the court.

• Propriety of Rule 65 vs. Rule 45: The Court clarified that the Rules of Court provide three modes of appeal—ordinary appeal under Rule 41, petition for review under Rule 42, and petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45—while a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 corrects errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order that does not finally dispose of the case; Rule 41, Section 1(c) expressly removes interlocutory orders from the subject of an appeal. Since an interlocutory order may not be questioned by appeal, the aggrieved party's recourse is a Rule 65 petition, subject to proof of grave abuse of discretion. The CA erred in relying on Republic vs. Sunvar, because in that case the RTC's order dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer was a final order that disposed of the certiorari petition, not an interlocutory order. The same distinction applies to Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique and Chuan vs. Uy, which involved orders dismissing counterclaims without prejudice—final, not interlocutory, orders. The Court found Almazan vs. Bacolod more apposite, where it held that the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, and the proper remedy is a Rule 65 petition. Accordingly, RBSMI rightly filed a Rule 65 petition, but the CA erred in dismissing it on the ground that a Rule 45 petition should have been filed instead.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Denial of Motion to Dismiss: For a Rule 65 petition to prosper, there must be proof that the tribunal acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty. No such acts were attributable to RTC Branch 35. In ordering the spouses Ramales to amend their petition to clarify which foreclosure proceedings were subject of the annulment, RTC Branch 35 acted pursuant to Rule 10, Section 1, which allows pleadings to be amended to correct a mistaken or inadequate allegation so that the actual merits of the controversy may be speedily determined without regard to technicalities. Such directive would allow a proper determination of the case.

• Jurisdiction over Real Action: The failure to allege the assessed value of the foreclosed properties was not fatal. In Tumpag vs. Tumpag, the Court adopted a liberal stance, holding that the failure to allege the assessed value in a real action will not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction if the assessed value may be determined from other documents appended to the complaint or petition. In Crystal vs. Son, the Court established a two-tiered rule: first, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value as alleged in the complaint; second, the rule is liberally applied if the assessed value, while not alleged, could be identified through a facial examination of attached documents. The Tax Declarations attached to the petition showed a total assessed value of PHP 92,840.00, and tax declarations enjoy the presumption of regularity. The petition was filed on September 30, 2016, prior to the amendment of B.P. Blg. 129, when the jurisdictional threshold of RTCs outside Metro Manila for real actions was PHP 20,000.00. The petition was thus well within RTC Branch 35's jurisdiction.

• Writ of Possession — Ministerial Duty: In an extrajudicial foreclosure, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner if no redemption is made within one year from registration of the certificate of sale. The purchaser's right to possession is absolute, and the court issues a writ of possession to command the sheriff to give possession to the purchaser. As a general rule, the issuance is ministerial; a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale will not stay the writ's issuance, and the trial court need not look into the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure. The issuance ceases to be ministerial only upon proof of: (i) gross inadequacy of the purchase price; (ii) a third party claiming a right adverse to the debtor-mortgagor; or (iii) failure to pay the surplus proceeds. ARSFI invoked the second exception, but the power of the court to execute judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor; when a third party holds the property adversely to the debtor-mortgagor, the court must conduct a hearing to determine the nature of the adverse possession. However, for the exception to apply, it must be proven that the third party possesses the property adversely—meaning the third party holds the property in its own right and not merely as a successor or transferee of the debtor-mortgagor.

• Adverse Possession by Third Party: ARSFI submitted the Judicial Affidavits of De Guzman and Rodrigo Rigos, with attached Deed of Donation and Tax Declarations, and filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim. However, De Guzman and Rigos were never presented in court to affirm the contents of their judicial affidavits, and Section 10(b) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule stringently ordains that the court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing. Even if the Deed of Donation were admitted, it would only prove that ARSFI is a successor or transferee of the spouses Ramales, not an adverse holder. Tax declarations by themselves are not conclusive evidence of ownership. The issuance of the writ of possession was therefore ministerial, and RTC Branch 21 did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

• Intervention: Rule 19, Section 1 allows a person with a legal interest in the matter in litigation to intervene. The intervenor must establish: (i) a legal interest in the controversy or success of either party or adverse to both, or being so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property; (ii) that intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of the original parties; and (iii) that the intervenor's rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding. The primordial requirement is a legal interest of a direct and immediate character. ARSFI's right to intervene was premised on its ownership of the donated properties, but it failed to prove its legal interest. Worse, ARSFI was given numerous opportunities to establish its claim but disregarded them—its counsel failed to appear at hearings set on December 9, 2019 and January 13, 2020, and ARSFI did not present any evidence at the February 3, 2020 hearing. Regarding ARSFI's contention that the CA affirmed the piercing of its corporate veil, the CA never affirmed such pronouncement; it acknowledged that RTC Branch 21 may have erred in not considering the separate juridical personalities of ARSFI and Josie, but explained this was not the only basis for denying the motion to intervene. Sans evidence of ARSFI's right over the donated properties, RTC Branch 21 correctly denied the motion to intervene, terceria, and opposition to the writ of possession.

• Interlocutory Orders and the Proper Remedy — An interlocutory order is one that does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions, but indicates that other things remain to be done. Under Rule 41, Section 1(c), no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. The aggrieved party's recourse is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, subject to proof that the interlocutory order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The general rule is that the party should file an answer, proceed to trial, and raise the interlocutory order as error on appeal from an adverse judgment; the narrow exception is a Rule 65 petition upon proof of grave abuse of discretion so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that RBSMI's Rule 65 petition was the proper remedy against the RTC's denial of its motion to dismiss, and distinguished Republic vs. Sunvar, Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique, and Chuan vs. Uy as involving final, not interlocutory, orders.

• Two-Tiered Rule for Determining Jurisdiction Over Real Actions — First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in the complaint. Second, the rule is liberally applied if the assessed value, while not alleged in the complaint, could still be identified through a facial examination of the documents already attached to the complaint. The Court applied this doctrine from Crystal vs. Son and Tumpag vs. Tumpag to hold that the spouses Ramales' failure to allege the assessed value was not fatal, as the Tax Declarations appended to the petition showed a total assessed value of PHP 92,840.00, within RTC Branch 35's jurisdiction.

• Ministerial Issuance of Writ of Possession and Exceptions — After the redemption period expires and title consolidates in the purchaser's name, the court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession. A pending annulment case does not stay the writ. The issuance ceases to be ministerial only upon proof of: (i) gross inadequacy of the purchase price; (ii) a third party claiming a right adverse to the debtor-mortgagor; or (iii) failure of the purchaser to pay the surplus proceeds. For the second exception to apply, the third party must hold the property in its own right, not as a successor or transferee of the debtor-mortgagor. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that ARSFI, as a donee of the spouses Ramales, was a transferee and not an adverse holder, and its witnesses' failure to appear rendered their judicial affidavits inadmissible.

• Requirements for Intervention — The intervenor must establish: (i) a legal interest in the matter in litigation, in the success of either party, or against both, or being so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property; (ii) that intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties; and (iii) that the intervenor's rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding. The interest must be actual and material—of a direct and immediate character so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. The right to intervene is not absolute but rests on the sound discretion of the court. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that ARSFI failed to establish its legal interest, having repeatedly failed to appear and present evidence at scheduled hearings.

• Terceria under Rule 39, Section 16 — For the remedy of terceria to prosper, the claim of ownership or right of possession to the levied property by the third-party claimant must first be unmistakably established; otherwise, the claim shall be denied. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that ARSFI's terceria failed because it did not prove its ownership—its witnesses did not appear to affirm their judicial affidavits, the Deed of Donation merely proved transferee status, and tax declarations alone are not conclusive evidence of ownership.

• "Since an interlocutory order may not be questioned by filing an appeal, the aggrieved party's recourse is to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, subject to proof that said interlocutory order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the proper remedy against an interlocutory order, distinguishing the case from Republic vs. Sunvar and establishing that Rule 65, not Rule 45, is the correct mode of review for orders denying motions to dismiss.

• "For possession to be regarded as adverse, the third party must hold the property in their own right and not merely as a successor or transferee of the debtor-mortgagor." — This defines the controlling standard for the exception to the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession, and is the key proposition that defeated ARSFI's claim of adverse possession.

• "First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in the complaint; and Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed value of the property, while not alleged in the complaint, could still be identified through a facial examination of the documents already attached to the complaint." — This is the canonical formulation of the two-tiered rule for determining jurisdiction over real actions, as adopted from Crystal vs. Son, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on jurisdictional thresholds.

• "The right to intervene is not an absolute right but rests on the sound discretion of the court." — This succinctly states the doctrinal principle governing intervention, anchoring the Court's conclusion that RTC Branch 21 did not abuse its discretion in denying ARSFI's motion to intervene given its failure to establish a legal interest.

• Republic vs. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation, 688 Phil. 616 (2012) — Distinguished. The Court held that Sunvar does not apply because it involved a Rule 45 petition against a final order of the RTC dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer, not an interlocutory order. The Court clarified that the subject of the Republic's Rule 45 petition in Sunvar was the final order of the RTC in resolving the certiorari petition, whereas in the instant case the subject was the interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss.

• Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corp., 740 Phil. 754 (2014) — Distinguished. The Court noted that Padilla involved an appeal of an order dismissing counterclaims without prejudice following dismissal of the main action—an order that is not interlocutory in nature—and therefore does not apply to the instant case.

• Chuan vs. Uy, 755 Phil. 370 (2015) — Distinguished. Like Padilla, Chuan involved direct recourse via Rule 45 to question an order dismissing a counterclaim upon dismissal of the complaint, which is not an interlocutory order, and thus is inapplicable.

• Almazan vs. Bacolod, 904 Phil. 355 (2021) — Followed. The Court found Almazan directly apposite, as it held that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory and non-appealable order, and the proper remedy is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari upon proof of grave abuse of discretion.

• Tumpag vs. Tumpag, 744 Phil. 423 (2014) — Followed. The Court adopted its liberal stance that failure to allege the assessed value of properties in a real action will not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction if the assessed value may be determined from other documents appended to the complaint.

• Crystal vs. Son, 821 Phil. 1033 (2017) — Followed. The Court relied on its two-tiered rule for determining jurisdiction over real actions, allowing the assessed value to be identified through a facial examination of documents attached to the complaint.

• Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday, 479 Phil. 768 (2004) — Followed. The Court cited its criteria for distinguishing a petition for review on certiorari from a special civil action for certiorari, and its definition of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Spouses Gallent vs. Velasquez, 784 Phil. 44 (2016) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the principle that for the exception to the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession to apply, the third party must hold the property in its own right and not as a successor or transferee of the debtor-mortgagor.

• Rule 41, Section 1, Rules of Court — Provides that an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, and expressly prohibits appeal from interlocutory orders. The Court applied this provision to hold that the denial of RBSMI's motion to dismiss, being interlocutory, is not appealable and may only be assailed via Rule 65 certiorari.

• Rule 10, Section 1, Rules of Court — Allows pleadings to be amended to correct a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description so that the actual merits of the controversy may be speedily determined without regard to technicalities. The Court applied this provision to hold that RTC Branch 35 acted within its authority in ordering the spouses Ramales to amend their petition to clarify which foreclosure proceedings were subject of the annulment.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action for certiorari, which corrects errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and may be availed of only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court held that this was the proper remedy for RBSMI to assail the interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court on questions of law. The Court clarified that Rule 45 is proper only against final orders, not interlocutory ones, and that the CA erred in dismissing RBSMI's Rule 65 petition on the ground that a Rule 45 petition should have been filed instead.

• Rule 19, Section 1, Rules of Court — Allows a person with a legal interest in the matter in litigation to intervene, subject to the court's discretion and consideration of whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties and whether the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. The Court applied this provision to hold that ARSFI's motion to intervene was correctly denied for failure to establish a legal interest.

• Rule 39, Section 16, Rules of Court — Governs the remedy of terceria, providing that if property levied on is claimed by a third person, and such person makes an affidavit of title or right to possession, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property unless the judgment obligee files an indemnity bond. The Court applied this provision to hold that ARSFI's terceria failed because its claim of ownership was not unmistakably established.

• Section 10(b), Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) — Provides that the court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing. The Court applied this provision to hold that the judicial affidavits of De Guzman and Rigos could not be considered because they never appeared in court to affirm their contents.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — The Court noted that the petition for annulment of foreclosure proceedings was filed on September 30, 2016, prior to the amendment of B.P. Blg. 129, when the jurisdictional threshold of RTCs outside Metro Manila for real actions was PHP 20,000.00, and the total assessed value of PHP 92,840.00 was thus within RTC Branch 35's jurisdiction.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. During deliberations, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa pointed out that a circumspect reading of Sunvar reveals the RTC's order there was a final order, not an interlocutory one, and that Padilla and Chuan likewise involved non-interlocutory orders. Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting pointed to Almazan vs. Bacolod as the controlling precedent for the proposition that the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and properly assailed via Rule 65.