G.R. No. 121494 ; June 8, 2000
SPOUSES VICTOR ONG and GRACE TIU ONG, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Pasig City, Branch 159; PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL GRACE S. BELVIS; DEPUTY SHERIFF VICTOR S. STA. ANA; and PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the mortgagors of a property in San Juan, secured a loan for Kenlene Laboratories, Inc. from respondent Premiere Development Bank. Upon the debtor company’s default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage under Act 3135 and emerged as the highest bidder. Within the redemption period, the bank secured a writ of possession from the RTC of Pasig, Branch 159, upon filing the requisite bond. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Petitioners then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals to enjoin the writ’s implementation. They argued that a separate case for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure was pending before another branch of the RTC-Pasig (Civil Case No. 64604). They contended that implementing the writ would render the annulment case nugatory. The Court of Appeals initially issued a TRO but ultimately dismissed the petition, citing failure to allege lack of plain, speedy remedy, forum-shopping, and the precedent in Veloso v. IAC that a pending annulment case is not a ground to deny a writ of possession.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether prohibition is the proper remedy to enjoin the implementation of a writ of possession issued after an extrajudicial foreclosure; and (2) Whether petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that prohibition does not lie. The issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended, is a ministerial duty of the court once the foreclosure purchaser files a bond (if within the redemption period) or after the redemption period lapses. The pendency of a separate action questioning the validity of the foreclosure does not affect this ministerial duty, as established in Veloso. The proper remedy for the mortgagor is not to prevent the issuance or implementation of the writ but to file a petition under Section 8 of Act 3135 to set aside the sale and cancel the writ after the purchaser is given possession, or to await the outcome of the annulment case, wherein a favorable judgment can restore possession.
On the second issue, the Court found petitioners guilty of forum-shopping. They pursued two simultaneous remedies in different fora—a petition for prohibition to stop the writ and a civil case for annulment of the foreclosure—both aimed at preventing the bank from taking possession, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasized that the writ of possession proceeding is ex parte and summary, and any challenge to the foreclosure’s validity must be addressed in the separate annulment suit, the pendency of which does not justify suspending the writ.