GR 161028; (January, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161028 ; January 31, 2005
TERESITA V. IDOLOR, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES GUMERSINDO DE GUZMAN and ILUMINADA DE GUZMAN and HON. JOSE G. PINEDA, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 220, Quezon City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Teresita Idolor obtained a loan from respondent-spouses Gumersindo and Iluminada De Guzman, secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon Idolor’s default, the respondents extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, emerged as the highest bidders at the auction sale, and were issued a Certificate of Sale. Idolor filed a complaint for annulment of the Certificate of Sale with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction. This injunction was later annulled by higher courts. After the redemption period lapsed and ownership was consolidated in their names, the respondent-spouses moved for the issuance of a writ of possession in the same RTC case.
The RTC denied the motion, reasoning that the lifting of the injunction only allowed for the issuance of a final deed of sale and consolidation of title, but did not automatically entitle the respondents to possession. The Court of Appeals reversed this order, finding grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty once title is consolidated, and the pendency of an annulment case is not a bar. Idolor elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to act on the motion for a writ of possession despite alleged non-payment of docket fees; and (2) whether a mortgagee, as a defendant in an annulment case, may apply for a writ of possession by mere motion in that same case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135 is a ministerial function of the court. Upon the expiration of the redemption period and consolidation of title in the purchaser’s name, the right to possession becomes absolute. The basis is the purchaser’s vested ownership. The pendency of a separate action questioning the validity of the sale does not impede this ministerial duty; the trial court has no discretion to deny the writ.
On the procedural issues, the Court ruled that an application for a writ of possession is a non-litigious, summary proceeding. A strict and technical application of rules on docket fees may be relaxed to prevent manifest injustice and to secure substantive rights. The respondent-spouses, as confirmed owners, were being denied possession through protracted litigation. The proper remedy was a simple ex parte motion filed in the corresponding registration proceeding (or in the case where the property title is involved), and the RTC, where the annulment case was pending and which involved the same property, could properly act on the motion. Any unpaid fees could be assessed and collected from the respondents at a later time. The RTC was ordered to issue the writ of possession.