DURAWOOD VS. BONA RTC rendered its Decision in favor of Durawood.

The
Decision became final and executor. Durawood filed a Motion
G.R. No. 179884 January 25, 2012 for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution It was when this Writ
was about to be enforced that Durawood discovered the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: cancellation of TCT No. R-17571 and the issuance of TCT No.
R-22522 in the name of Candice and her siblings.
FACTS: On June 3, 2004, petitioner Durawood Construction
and Lumber Supply, Inc. (Durawood) filed an action for sum of
Durawood filed a Motion to Reinstate Notice of Levy on
money plus damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
Attachment in TCT No. R-22522 Acting on the Motion to
preliminary attachment against LBB Construction and
Reinstate Notice of Levy on Attachment in TCT No. R-22522,
Development Corporation (LBB Construction) and its president
the RTC issued an Order[12] dated March 2, 2006, ruling in
Leticia Barber (Barber) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
favor of Durawood.
of Antipolo.
Candice filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above
On June 14, 2004, the RTC issued an Order granting
Order. On April 7, 2006, the RTC issued an Order denying
Durawoods prayer for the issuance of a writ of attachment
Candices Motion for Reconsideration.
On July 13, 2004, respondent Candice S. Bona
On April 11, 2006, Sheriff Leyva sold the subject
(Candice) filed a Motion seeking leave to intervene in Civil
property at public auction for P1,259,727.90 with Durawood
Case No. 04-7240. She alleged that LBB Construction had
being the lone bidder, and issued the corresponding Certificate
sold the property to her and her siblings
of Sale.
RTC granted Candices Motion to Intervene. LBB
Candice filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for
Construction and Barber filed their Answer, but failed to attend
Certiorari and Prohibition.
the scheduled hearings, including the pre-trial. Consequently,
Durawood was allowed to present its evidence ex parte.
 On April 18, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the
assailed Decision in favor of Candice.
Durawood filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the
same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution
dated September 18, 2007. Durawood filed the instant Petition
for Review.
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in
contemplation of law.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted We find that the RTC was, in fact, acting properly when

Candices Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on its finding it ordered the reinstatement of the Notice of Levy on

that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Attachment in TCT No. R-22522. Since the RTC cannot be

March 2, 2006 and April 7, 2006 Orders. considered as to have acted in grave abuse of its discretion in
issuing such Order, the Petition for Certiorari assailing the
same should have been dismissed.
RULING: All these allegations are specific matters to be
resolved by this Court in determining the overriding issue of the
case at bar: whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted
Candices Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on its finding
that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its
March 2, 2006 and April 7, 2006 Orders. In other words, the
main issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not
there was grave abuse of discretion in the RTCs order to
reinstate the notice of levy on attachment in TCT No. R-22522.
Grave abuse of discretion signifies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of