GR 147820; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147820. March 18, 2005
SPOUSES RUBEN SANTIAGO and INOCENCIA SANTIAGO, Petitioners, vs. MERCHANTS RURAL BANK OF TALAVERA, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Merchants Rural Bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City. The bank alleged that petitioners spouses Santiago executed a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land to secure loans, and upon the spouses’ default, the properties were extrajudicially foreclosed. The bank emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction, the certificates of sale were duly registered, and after the redemption period lapsed without redemption, titles were consolidated in the bank’s favor. Petitioners, though aware of the petition, did not file a comment but instead requested more time to repurchase the properties. During a hearing, both parties agreed to submit the petition for resolution. The RTC granted the petition and issued the writ.
Petitioners then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the writ without any evidence being formally offered and marked in support of the bank’s petition. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, reiterating their argument on the lack of formal offer of evidence and adding that the RTC order failed to state the facts and law on which it was based, contrary to the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the ex parte petition for a writ of possession despite the absence of a formal offer of evidence and in issuing an order that allegedly did not state the facts and the law.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that a petition for a writ of possession, following the consolidation of title in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, is a ministerial duty of the court. The right to possession becomes absolute upon consolidation of ownership. Consequently, the court exercises neither discretion nor judgment in issuing the writ, and the formal offer of documentary and testimonial evidence is not a mandatory requirement in such ex parte proceedings. The Court further ruled that the petitioners’ new argument regarding the RTC order’s non-compliance with Rule 36, Section 1 of the Rules of Court was a mere afterthought, raised only for the first time on appeal. In any case, by granting the petition after finding it sufficient in form and substance, the RTC incorporated the petition’s material allegations into its order, constituting substantial compliance. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the RTC’s issuance of the writ of possession.