GR 154355; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154355 ; May 20, 2004
Spouses REMPSON SAMSON and MILAGROS SAMSON; and REMPSON REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. Judge MAURICIO M. RIVERA, in His Capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73; Atty. JOSELITA MALIBAGO-SANTOS, in Her Capacity as Ex Officio Sheriff, RTC of Antipolo City; and LENJUL REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Samson obtained a loan from Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) secured by real estate mortgages over five parcels of commercial property. Upon default, FEBTC applied for extrajudicial foreclosure. At the public auction, respondent Lenjul Realty Corporation emerged as the highest bidder. After the redemption period expired and new titles were issued to Lenjul, it filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Petitioners opposed the writ and filed a separate civil action for annulment of the foreclosure sale, nullification of titles, and reconveyance. They also moved to consolidate this annulment case with the petition for the writ of possession. The RTC, through Judge Rivera, initially denied consolidation. It later granted the petition for the writ of possession, ruling the issuance was ministerial, and directed the sheriff to place Lenjul in possession. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession despite a pending action challenging the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts. The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court under Act No. 3135 . This ministerial function proceeds independently of any pending action questioning the regularity or validity of the sale. The buyer’s right to possession becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption period without the mortgagor having redeemed the property.
The legal logic is clear: the pendency of a separate action for annulment does not bar the issuance of the writ. The remedy for the mortgagor is not to prevent the issuance but to have the writ canceled should they subsequently prevail in the annulment case. This rule ensures the stability of foreclosure proceedings and prevents mortgagors from unduly delaying the purchaser’s possession through ancillary suits. The Court also found that a petition for certiorari was an improper remedy, as the trial court’s order was issued in the exercise of its ministerial, not discretionary, function, and no grave abuse of discretion was present.