G.R. No. 95095 ; February 7, 1991
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. LUIS R. REYES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, 4th Judicial Region, Imus, Cavite, respondent.

FACTS

The spouses Teodoro and Sonia Espiritu obtained credit accommodations from petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), secured by real estate mortgages over four parcels of land. Upon the spouses’ default, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed. At the public auction on January 12, 1982, UCPB emerged as the purchaser and was issued a certificate of sale. The Espiritu spouses failed to redeem the properties within the statutory period. Consequently, UCPB consolidated its ownership and secured new transfer certificates of title in its name.
On February 16, 1990, UCPB filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, to obtain possession of the properties, which the Espiritu spouses continued to occupy. The respondent judge, Hon. Luis R. Reyes, issued an order dated July 6, 1990, directing UCPB to file a proper petition to make the Espiritu spouses respondents so the court could acquire jurisdiction over them. UCPB’s motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied by the respondent judge.

ISSUE

Whether the denial of an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by a purchaser at a foreclosure sale after the expiration of the redemption period constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

Yes, the denial constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the RTC orders and directing the issuance of the writ of possession. The legal logic is anchored on Act No. 3135 , as amended, which governs extrajudicial foreclosure. Section 7 of the Act explicitly provides that a purchaser may petition the court for possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath and upon approval of a bond, and the court is mandated to issue the writ.
Crucially, the Court, citing IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corp. vs. Nera, ruled that the right to a writ of possession extends beyond the redemption period. After the lapse of the redemption period and upon consolidation of title, the purchaser’s right to possession becomes absolute. The issuance is a ministerial duty of the court upon a proper ex parte application; no separate adversarial proceeding is required. The respondent judge’s insistence on a formal petition to acquire jurisdiction over the mortgagors and ensure due process was erroneous. The proceeding for a writ of possession after consolidation is summary and ex parte in nature. Any question regarding the validity of the sale is to be resolved in a subsequent proceeding, not as a bar to the issuance of the writ. Therefore, the RTC’s refusal to act ministerially constituted a grave abuse of discretion.