G.R. No. 101083
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES FORTUNATO AND VIRGINIA VITAL, respondents.

July 8, 1996

FACTS

Spouses Fortunato and Virginia Vital obtained a loan from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. They defaulted on the loan. Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property as the highest bidder at the public auction. The one-year redemption period expired without the Vitals redeeming the property. Metrobank then filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted. The Vitals appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the writ of possession should not issue because the foreclosure and auction sale were void, alleging irregularities such as lack of proper notice and that the auction price was shockingly low. The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC’s order and remanded the case for a hearing on the validity of the foreclosure sale. Metrobank filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court, in a proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession after the expiration of the redemption period in an extrajudicial foreclosure, may still inquire into the validity of the foreclosure sale and the mortgage itself.

RULING

No. The petition is granted. The Court of Appeals’ decision is reversed and the RTC’s order granting the writ of possession is reinstated.

Upon the expiration of the redemption period without the mortgagor exercising the right of redemption, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale acquires an absolute right to the writ of possession as a matter of course. The proceeding for the issuance of the writ is a ministerial and ex parte function of the court. The trial court is not tasked to look into the validity of the mortgage or the regularity of the foreclosure proceedings. Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale must be raised in a separate proceeding, such as an action to annul the mortgage or the foreclosure sale. To allow a full-blown hearing on the alleged nullity of the sale in the summary proceeding for a writ of possession would defeat its very purpose, which is to summarily place the purchaser in possession of the property after consolidation of title. The Vitals’ remedy, if they believe the sale is void, is to file a separate action for that purpose, but such action cannot bar the issuance of the writ of possession after the redemption period has lapsed.