G.R. No. 160479 ; June 8, 2005
SPOUSES GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA and REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EQUITABLE PCIBANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Arquiza obtained a loan from respondent Equitable PCIBank, secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. Upon default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the property as the highest bidder at the auction sale, and, after the redemption period lapsed without redemption, consolidated its ownership. A new title was issued in the bank’s name. The spouses, however, filed a separate civil action (Civil Case No. Q-98-34094) against the bank, seeking to annul the promissory note, mortgage, and foreclosure sale, and to enjoin the redemption period. Meanwhile, the bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession over the foreclosed property. The trial court, instead of proceeding ex parte, set the petition for hearing and required service on the spouses, who filed an answer arguing, among other things, that the petition was defective for lacking a certificate of non-forum shopping and was barred by litis pendentia due to the pending civil case.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly granted the bank’s petition for a writ of possession despite the pendency of a separate civil case challenging the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure, and despite alleged procedural defects in the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of the writ of possession. The legal logic is anchored on the ministerial and summary nature of a writ of possession proceeding following a consolidated extrajudicial foreclosure. Once the redemption period expires and title is consolidated in the purchaser’s name, the right to possession becomes a necessary incident of ownership. The court’s duty to issue the writ is ministerial; it does not require a hearing on the merits of the foreclosure’s validity, nor can it be defeated by a pending action challenging that validity. The pending civil case for annulment constitutes a distinct cause of action that must be resolved separately, but it does not preclude the issuance of the writ, which is a summary proceeding designed to place the new owner in possession. Regarding procedure, a petition for a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading that commences an original action but is a mere incident in the execution of a final judgment (the foreclosure); thus, a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required. The rule against forum shopping was not violated because the two proceedings involve different causes: the writ of possession concerns the enforcement of a right following consolidation, while the civil case attacks the underlying transaction’s validity. The trial court, therefore, committed no error in granting the writ.