GR 109672; (July, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109672 July 14, 1994
SPOUSES EDUARDO VACA and MA. LUISITA PILAR, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ASSOCIATED BANK, respondents.
FACTS
On February 7, 1992, private respondent Associated Bank filed a petition (LRC Case No. Q-5536-92) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the issuance of a writ of possession over a property covered by TCT No. 254504, consisting of a lot and a residential house. The bank alleged that petitioners Eduardo Vaca and Ma. Luisita Pilar failed to pay their mortgage obligation, leading to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. The property was sold to the bank as the highest bidder on October 30, 1990. After the one-year redemption period expired, the title was cancelled and a new one (TCT No. 52593) was issued in the bank’s name. Despite demands, petitioners refused to turn over possession. Petitioners opposed the petition, alleging that there was a pending action (Civil Case No. Q-91-8285) in another court for the annulment of the mortgage and its foreclosure. The RTC denied the bank’s petition on June 11, 1992, and its motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1992. The Court of Appeals annulled these orders and directed the RTC to issue the writ of possession. Petitioners then filed this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of a separate civil action for the annulment of the mortgage and its foreclosure constitutes a prejudicial question that bars the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale after the expiration of the redemption period.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the pendency of a separate civil suit questioning the validity of the mortgage does not bar the issuance of a writ of possession. Citing Vda. de Jacob v. Court of Appeals and Navarra v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, after the lapse of the one-year redemption period and consolidation of title, is a ministerial duty of the court. The rule is subject to exceptions only under peculiar equitable circumstances, such as when the property is sold at a grossly inadequate price (Cometa v. IAC) or when there is a significant delay in seeking the writ and third-party rights are involved (Barican v. IAC). None of these exceptional circumstances were present in this case. Since the property was not redeemed within the statutory period, the bank acquired an absolute right to the issuance of the writ under Act No. 3135 , Section 7.