GR 144697; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144697; December 10, 2003
RODOLFO ALARILLA, SR., ROSARIO G. ALARILLA, RODOLFO G. ALARILLA, JR., RODERICK G. ALARILLA, RAINIER G. ALARILLA, RANDY G. ALARILLA, MA. ROSELLE G. ALARILLA-PARAYNO and ALEJANDRO PARAYNO, JR., petitioners, vs. REYNALDO C. OCAMPO, respondent.
FACTS
Spouses Isidro de Guzman and Andrea Enriquez owned a parcel of land in Manila. After Andrea’s death, Isidro and their daughter Rosario (married to Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr.) mortgaged the property to spouses Reynaldo Ocampo and Josephine Llave. Upon default, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and the property was sold at public auction to the Ocampo spouses on July 13, 1994. The redemption period expired without the mortgagors exercising their right.
The Alarillas, claiming to be heirs and occupants, filed a separate civil case to annul the foreclosure sale, arguing the property was a legally constituted family home under the Family Code and that the mortgage was void due to non-liquidation of the family home after Andrea’s death. Meanwhile, Reynaldo Ocampo filed a petition for a writ of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted ex parte. The Alarillas moved to set aside the writ, but the RTC denied their motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession despite the pending action questioning the validity of the foreclosure sale and the claim that the property is a family home.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the issuance of the writ of possession. The legal logic is clear and ministerial. First, the one-year redemption period had lapsed, and title had already been consolidated in the name of the respondent as the auction purchaser. As the confirmed owner, he is entitled to possession as a matter of right. The court’s duty to issue a writ of possession upon proper application is a ministerial function after consolidation of title.
Second, the pendency of a separate action for annulment of the foreclosure sale (Civil Case No. 95-75769) is not a legal obstacle to the issuance of the writ. Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure is irrelevant to the possessory proceeding. The writ may be issued without prejudice to the outcome of the annulment case. The claim that the property is a family home, which is a matter to be threshed out in the separate civil case, does not bar the issuance of the writ. The petitioners did not even file an opposition to the petition for the writ of possession in the first instance. Consequently, the writ must be enforced without delay.