G.R. No. 141365. November 27, 2002.
SPOUSES FELIPE YULIENCO and FLORA YULIENCO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (4th DIVISION); HON. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, NCJR, Quezon City; DEPUTY SHERIFF JOSE G. MARTINEZ of Branch 96, RTC, Quezon City; and ADVANCE CAPITAL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Felipe and Flora Yulienco obtained a loan from respondent Advance Capital Corporation (ACC), secured by real estate mortgages on several properties, including their house and lot in Quezon City. Upon petitioners’ failure to pay, ACC initiated extrajudicial foreclosure. Petitioners filed a petition for injunction, reformation, and damages in the Makati RTC (Branch 61), assailing the validity of the promissory notes and mortgages and seeking to enjoin the foreclosure. The Makati RTC initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), but after its expiration, the foreclosure of the Quezon City property proceeded, and it was sold to ACC as the highest bidder. Petitioners failed to redeem the property. ACC consolidated its ownership, and a new title was issued in its name. ACC then filed a petition for a writ of possession in the Quezon City RTC (Branch 96). Petitioners opposed, citing the pending case in Makati. The Quezon City RTC granted the writ. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City’s decision granting the writ of possession to respondent Advance Capital Corporation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court once the foreclosure sale is confirmed and the redemption period has expired. The pendency of an action for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale does not bar the issuance of the writ. The Quezon City RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the petition for a writ of possession as the property is situated within its territorial jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 7 of Act No. 3135. The pending case in Makati RTC for injunction, reformation, and damages does not constitute a prejudicial question, as both actions are civil in nature and the resolution of the Makati case is not a logical antecedent to the issuance of the possessory writ. The purchaser’s right to possession is based on its title, and until the foreclosure sale is annulled by a competent court, the issuance of the writ remains ministerial.