G.R. No. 163410 September 16, 2005
CONCEPCION R. ANCHETA, Petitioner, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC. and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed a real estate mortgage executed by Maglalang Construction and Development Corporation over seven parcels of land. After the mortgagor failed to redeem, Metrobank consolidated ownership, secured new titles, and successfully petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a writ of possession. The RTC granted the petition and issued the writ, which was implemented. Subsequently, Concepcion R. Ancheta, claiming to be a co-owner of the mortgaged properties, filed an urgent motion for intervention. She argued that a separate RTC case, where a summary judgment had declared the mortgage, foreclosure, and auction sale null and void, was pending appeal. She contended the writ of possession had no legal basis pending the final outcome of that appeal.
Metrobank opposed the intervention, arguing it was filed after the RTC had already granted the writ, making it moot. The RTC denied the motion for intervention. Ancheta elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, but the CA dismissed her petition. The CA ruled that a petition for a writ of possession under Act No. 3135 is ex parte and summary, and intervention is not allowed after judgment. Ancheta then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of Ancheta’s motion for intervention and in upholding the issuance of the writ of possession despite the pending appeal annulling the mortgage and foreclosure.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court explained that a writ of possession is a ministerial function following a consolidation of title after a foreclosure sale. The proceeding under Act No. 3135 is ex parte and summary in nature. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale, in this case Metrobank, is entitled to a writ as a matter of right upon proper application and the posting of the required bond, if applicable. The pendency of an action questioning the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure does not bar the issuance of the writ. The right to possession is independent of the resolution of any pending annulment case.
The Court clarified that the trial court in the writ proceeding does not adjudicate the validity of the mortgage or the sale; it merely implements the ancillary relief of possession incident to the transfer of title. The summary judgment declaring the mortgage null and void did not constitute a final and executory judgment as it was still on appeal. Therefore, Metrobank’s right to the writ, based on its consolidated titles, remained enforceable. The proper remedy for Ancheta was not intervention in the already-concluded ex parte proceeding but to seek relief under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 or await the final outcome of the pending annulment case. The issuance of the writ does not prejudice the eventual outcome of that appeal.