G.R. No. 165963. September 3, 2007.
SPOUSES NORBERTO OLIVEROS & ELVIRA OLIVEROS, represented by NORBERTO OLIVEROS & CABUYAO COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA and METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, along with other mortgagors, obtained loans from respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon default, Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the properties at the auction sale, and, after the mortgagors failed to redeem, consolidated its ownership. New titles were issued in Metrobank’s name. Metrobank then filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Petitioners filed an opposition, arguing that they had a pending action for the nullification of the foreclosure proceedings (Civil Case No. B-5829) and that the ex parte petition should not be granted without a hearing on the merits of their opposition.
The RTC, after initially setting the petition for hearing, proceeded to treat it as an ex parte matter. It denied petitioners’ opposition and allowed Metrobank to present evidence ex parte, ultimately granting the writ of possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, contending that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ without first resolving the issues raised in their pending action for annulment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the ex parte petition for a writ of possession despite the pendency of an action for annulment of the foreclosure sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty upon the filing of a proper petition and the approval of the corresponding bond. This ministerial function is mandated by Act No. 3135, as amended. The court exercises no discretion in this proceeding; its duty is purely ministerial once the jurisdictional facts are established.
The pendency of a separate action questioning the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale does not divest the court of its ministerial duty to issue the writ. The writ of possession is not a judgment on the merits of ownership but is a consequence of the consolidation of title in the purchaser’s name after the redemption period. The purchaser’s right to possession becomes absolute upon such consolidation. Any challenge to the foreclosure’s validity must be pursued in the separate action, the outcome of which is without prejudice to the writ’s issuance. The trial court, therefore, did not err or commit grave abuse of discretion in performing its ministerial duty despite the pending annulment case.