G.R. No. 155403, March 31, 2006
Honorio Torres, Jr., Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Antonio M. Esteves, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 5, Baguio City; Nestor F. Rimando, Sheriff IV, Baguio City; and The Spouses Ramon T. Torres and Agnes Torres, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Honorio Torres, Jr. and his brother Michael Torres are the donees of a 304-square-meter portion of a family lot in Baguio City, donated by their father, Honorio Torres, Sr., in 1998. The donation was registered years later, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-70954 was issued in their names on January 27, 1999. The following day, January 28, 1999, petitioner mortgaged his one-half (152 sq.m.) share to his uncle, respondent Ramon T. Torres, and his wife, Agnes Torres, to secure a loan of P1,869,640.78. The deed of real estate mortgage contained a waiver of the right of redemption. Due to petitioner’s failure to pay the debt, the respondent spouses petitioned for extrajudicial foreclosure. A sheriff’s auction sale was scheduled for January 11, 2000. Petitioner filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 4591-R) for nullity of the mortgage and the notice of auction sale, with a prayer for injunction. The case was raffled to Branch 5, RTC Baguio, presided by respondent Judge Antonio M. Esteves. Petitioner’s ex-parte motions for a temporary restraining order to stop the sale were denied. The sheriff proceeded with the auction on January 11, 2000, where the respondent spouses were the highest bidders. A sheriff’s certificate of sale was issued, and a final certificate of sale followed on February 3, 2000, citing the waiver of redemption. Petitioner filed an amended complaint. Subsequently, the respondent spouses filed a motion for issuance of a writ of possession. The respondent judge granted the motion via an Order dated August 8, 2002, and later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated September 18, 2002. Petitioner then filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the writ of possession.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders dated August 8, 2002 and September 18, 2002, which granted the writ of possession in favor of the respondent spouses.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court following a foreclosure sale under Act No. 3135, as amended. The issuance is a matter of right on the part of the purchaser, and the court has no discretion to deny it. The duty is particularly ministerial after the redemption period has expired and no redemption is made. In this case, the petitioner had expressly waived his right of redemption in the deed of real estate mortgage. Consequently, the redemption period never commenced, and the respondent spouses, as purchasers, were entitled to the writ as a matter of right immediately after the sale. The pendency of a separate action for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale does not bar the issuance of the writ. The court’s function in issuing the writ is purely ministerial and does not involve an evaluation of the validity of the mortgage or the sale. Therefore, the respondent judge acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence, and no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the assailed Orders. The petition was dismissed.