GR 155813; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155813 ; October 10, 2008
CECILIA S. BALDUEZA, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact CLODUALDO M. ESCOBAR, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PRUDENTIAL BANK, and HON. ARTURO G. TAYAG, Deputy Sheriff of the RTC, Branch 79, Malolos, Bulacan, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cecilia S. Baldueza mortgaged a parcel of land to respondent Prudential Bank to secure a loan. Upon petitioner’s failure to pay the loan upon maturity, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the property on December 12, 1995. The bank was the highest bidder at the public auction. On the same date, petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the contract (Civil Case No. 818-M-95). The one-year redemption period expired on December 12, 1996 without redemption by petitioner. The bank consolidated ownership, and a new title was issued in its name. On August 8, 2001, the bank filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession, which the RTC granted. Petitioner opposed, alleging the bank acted in bad faith by, among other things, omitting the notice of lis pendens from the new title and not disclosing the pending annulment case in its petition. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent petition, sustaining the RTC’s issuance of the writ.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of respondent Prudential Bank.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the issuance of the writ of possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. It is settled that after the expiration of the redemption period and upon consolidation of ownership in the purchaser’s name, the purchaser is entitled to possession of the property as an absolute right. The issuance of a writ of possession upon proper application and proof of title becomes a ministerial duty of the court. The pending suit for annulment of the mortgage does not bar the issuance of the writ, without prejudice to the outcome of that case. Petitioner’s allegations of the bank’s bad faith are factual matters, and the factual findings of the lower courts, which did not find bad faith, are binding on the Supreme Court in this petition for review on certiorari, which is limited to reviewing errors of law.