GR 146933; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146933 ; June 8, 2006
SPOUSES CONSTANTINO ESPIRIDION and REMEDIOS ESPIRIDION and SPOUSES RENATO RAMOS and ERLINDA RAMOS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SECOND BULACAN DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners mortgaged a property to respondent Second Bulacan Development Bank (SBDB) to secure a loan. Upon petitioners’ default, SBDB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the property at the public auction, and consolidated ownership after the one-year redemption period lapsed without redemption. SBDB filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession. Petitioners opposed, claiming the extrajudicial foreclosure sale was void due to alleged procedural defects, including non-compliance with filing and raffle requirements for the notice of sale. The trial court granted the writ, holding it could not rule on the validity of the foreclosure sale in that proceeding and that the issuance was ministerial. Petitioners appealed, but the Court of Appeals granted SBDB’s motion for a writ of execution/possession pending appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of possession pending appeal.
RULING
The petition has no merit. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial act upon the court once title is consolidated after the redemption period. The Court explained that a ministerial duty is performed in obedience to a legal mandate without the exercise of discretion or judgment. Since the law mandates the issuance of the writ after consolidation of title, the trial court had no discretion to refuse it. Consequently, the appellate court’s affirmance involved no exercise of discretion that could be tainted by grave abuse. The alleged nullity of the foreclosure sale is irrelevant in the ex-parte proceeding for a writ of possession; such a question is a separate issue that cannot bar the ministerial issuance of the writ. Furthermore, the posting of a bond is unnecessary when the writ is sought after the redemption period, as ownership has already vested absolutely in the purchaser. Therefore, the Court of Appeals committed no error.