G.R. No. 165971 September 3, 2007
Spouses Jeanette Maliwat and Rufino Maliwat, petitioners, vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Maliwat obtained a loan from respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank), secured by three real estate mortgages over their property in Valenzuela City. Upon petitioners’ failure to pay the loan, Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgages. The property was sold at a public auction with Metrobank as the highest bidder, and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor. Metrobank subsequently filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted.
While the petition for the writ of possession was pending, petitioners filed a separate complaint for annulment of the mortgages, foreclosure proceedings, and auction sale. This annulment case was consolidated with the writ of possession case. The RTC then issued an order granting petitioners’ prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, thereby enjoining the enforcement of the previously issued writ of possession in favor of Metrobank.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the trial court’s orders that enjoined the writ of possession. The legal logic is anchored on Section 7 of Act No. 3135 , as amended, which governs the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure sales.
The Court ruled that the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right, upon the filing of a proper motion and the approval of an indemnity bond during the redemption period. This right becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption period if no redemption is made. The issuance of the writ is a ministerial duty of the court. Any questions regarding the regularity or validity of the sale are to be litigated in a separate subsequent proceeding and cannot be used to oppose the issuance or enforcement of the writ of possession. Consequently, a writ of preliminary injunction is an improper remedy to delay or prohibit the issuance or implementation of such a writ. The trial court, therefore, acted with grave abuse of discretion in enjoining the enforcement of the writ, as it had no legal alternative but to enforce it without delay.