G.R. No. 217095 , February 12, 2020
HH & CO. AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ADRIANO PERLAS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On April 22, 1994, petitioner HH & Co. Agricultural Corporation instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure on a real estate mortgage covering Lot No. 3 in Cadiz City. Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction sale, and a certificate of sale was issued in its favor. The redemption period expired on December 15, 2001. Petitioner did not execute and register an affidavit of consolidation of title due to a preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Cadiz City in a separate case for declaration of nullity of mortgage, foreclosure sale, interest, penalties, and other damages (Civil Case No. 655-C) involving the same property.
On December 5, 2008, petitioner filed an Application for Writ of Possession (LRC Case No. 679-C). The RTC granted the application in an Order dated March 16, 2009, and a Writ of Possession was issued. An Entry of Final Judgment was issued on April 27, 2009.
On June 3, 2009, respondent Adriano Perlas filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession. Respondent, an heir of the mortgagor, argued that he and his siblings had filed two cases involving the property: Civil Case No. 255-C (for annulment of sale, recovery of possession, and cancellation of title), then pending appeal, and Civil Case No. 655-C (for nullity of mortgage). He asserted a legal interest in the property as part of his mother’s estate.
The RTC, in an Order dated January 8, 2010, granted the motion, recalled and set aside the writ of possession, and ordered the consolidation of LRC Case No. 679-C with Civil Case No. 655-C. The RTC found a legal impediment due to a prior writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 655-C enjoining the consolidation of title, which it held prevented petitioner from exercising its right to possess.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. It then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated July 3, 2014, denied the petition, ruling that petitioner failed to meet the requirements for the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession because it had not consolidated its ownership and obtained a new certificate of title due to the injunction. The CA held that proof of title is a condition sine qua non for the writ to be ministerial. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2015.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals properly ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its Order granting petitioner’s application for issuance of a writ of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the RTC’s Order dated March 16, 2009 and the Writ of Possession dated May 6, 2009.
The Court held that the RTC’s Order granting the writ of possession had already become final and executory, as evidenced by the Entry of Final Judgment dated April 27, 2009. The doctrine of immutability of judgment applies, and none of its exceptions (correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgment, or supervening events making execution unjust) were present.
On the merits, the Court ruled that a buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property if no redemption is made within one year from the registration of the sale. As absolute owner, the buyer is entitled to all rights of ownership, including possession. A writ of possession may be issued in favor of the buyer: (1) within the redemption period, upon filing a bond; or (2) after the redemption period, with no bond required. The duty of the court to issue such a writ is ministerial and may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of the mortgage or foreclosure. The only exception is when a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right in his own capacity, not as a mere successor or transferee of the mortgagor. In this case, respondent, as an heir of the mortgagor, is not a third party under the exception. Therefore, the RTC had a ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession, and its subsequent order recalling it was improper.