GR 135219; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135219 ; January 17, 2002
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO AUSTRIA and LORETO Q. QUINTANA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) extrajudicially foreclosed a real estate mortgage executed by spouses Godofredo and Wilma Monsod over a parcel of land after they defaulted on a loan. PNB was the highest bidder at the auction sale, consolidated ownership after the redemption period, and obtained a new title. PNB subsequently filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession under Act No. 3135 , which the Regional Trial Court granted. The writ, and several alias writs, were issued but could not be enforced because respondents Ernesto and Loreto Austria, the actual occupants, refused to vacate. The Austrias claimed they had purchased the property from the Monsods as early as 1974, prior to the mortgage, and that PNB was aware of their claim. They filed multiple motions to intervene and to recall the writs.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of possession issued under Act No. 3135 can be enforced against a third party who asserts a right of ownership adverse to that of the mortgagor.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and denied PNB’s petition. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of ex-parte proceedings under Act No. 3135 and the protection of due process for third-party claimants. The Court held that a writ of possession under Act No. 3135 is a ministerial issuance only against the mortgagor or their successors-in-interest. Its purpose is to place the purchaser at a foreclosure sale in possession of the property without a separate court action, but this summary proceeding cannot be used to eject a third party who claims a right adverse to and independent of the mortgagor. The Austrias, as possessors claiming ownership predating the mortgage, are not mere successors of the Monsods but assert a title in their own right. Against such a party, PNB’s remedy is not a summary possessory writ but a proper judicial action, such as an action for ejectment or to quiet title, where the conflicting claims of ownership and possession can be fully adjudicated. The trial court, therefore, correctly refused to enforce the writ against the Austrias, as to do so would deprive them of their property without due process. The registration of title in PNB’s name does not automatically entitle it to possession in this summary manner against an adverse claimant.