G.R. No. 106958 February 9, 1994
AURORA GONZALES VDA. DE ZABALLERO and the heirs of PATERNO ZABALLERO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DIVISION, HON. ELISA R. ISRAEL, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 4, THE SHERIFF OF MANILA AND MONTE DE PIEDAD & SAVINGS BANK, respondents.

FACTS

On July 5, 1978, spouses Paterno Zaballero, Sr. and Aurora Gonzales obtained a loan from respondent Monte de Piedad Savings Bank, secured by a real estate mortgage over their residential lot in Manila. By September 30, 1992, the obligation increased to P500,314.52. The bank requested loan restructuring on March 28, 1983. Aurora Gonzales Vda. de Zaballero informed the bank on May 17, 1983, of her husband’s death on May 4, 1983. On July 3, 1985, the bank sent a statement showing an outstanding account of P766,011.34 as of July 15, 1985. The bank subsequently foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold at public auction on July 11, 1988. On June 28, 1991, petitioners filed an action for nullification of the foreclosure and auction sale (Civil Case No. 91-57724). After the redemption period expired, the bank filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the respondent court on November 13, 1991. The heirs then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the bank. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the private respondent bank was proper.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the purchaser of a foreclosed property has the right to acquire possession during the redemption period upon ex parte application and posting of a bond, as sanctioned by Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended. With more reason, a purchaser can demand a writ of possession after the expiration of the redemption period. The Court cited F. David Enterprises vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, stating that the buyer becomes the absolute owner if the property is not redeemed within one year and is entitled to possession; the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial duty of the court upon proper application and proof of title. The Court noted that petitioners did not refute the expiration of the redemption period. Their claim regarding lack of notice of the foreclosure and their intention to pay the debt was deemed irrelevant to the issue of the writ’s propriety. Any alleged defect in the foreclosure sale must be threshed out in the separate civil case (No. 91-57724) and does not defeat the right to possession. The pendency of that case does not bar the issuance of the writ, as it is a ministerial duty of the court. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.