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.) executed a real estate mortgage over the property in favor of Spouses Reynaldo Ocampo. Upon default, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at public auction to the Ocampos on July 13, 1994. The certificate of sale was registered, and after the redemption period lapsed, title was consolidated in the Ocampos’ name. The Alarillas, claiming to be heirs and occupants, filed a separate civil case to annul the foreclosure, arguing the property was a family home under the Family Code and that the mortgage was void. Meanwhile, Reynaldo Ocampo filed a petition for a writ of possession in the same RTC, which was granted ex parte.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession despite the pending civil case challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court once the redemption period expires and title is consolidated. The right to possession is a necessary consequence of the purchaser’s consolidated ownership. The pendency of a separate action questioning the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure (Civil Case No. 95-75769) does not bar the issuance of the writ. Such an action is independent and pertains to the ultimate issue of ownership, but it cannot delay the ministerial issuance of the writ of possession. The purchaser’s entitlement to possession is immediate and should not be thwarted by ancillary claims. The Alarillas’ remedies, if any, lie in the outcome of their separate civil case for nullification, not in opposing the writ of possession. The Court also noted that the Alarillas did not even file an opposition to the petition for the writ in the first instance.