GR 171386; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171386 ; July 17, 2009
GLORIA R. MOTOS and MARTIN MOTOS, Petitioners, vs. REAL BANK (A THRIFT BANK), INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Spouses Martin and Gloria Motos obtained loans from Real Bank, secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the property, emerged as the highest bidder, and, after the redemption period lapsed, consolidated its title. Real Bank then filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which granted it. The spouses Motos, after being served the writ, filed a motion to quash it, arguing they were not heard on the petition. The RTC denied their motion.
The spouses filed a notice of appeal from the order denying their motion to quash. The RTC, however, denied due course to this appeal. The spouses then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court partially granted the petition, affirming the RTC’s decision granting the writ of possession and the order denying the motion to quash, but setting aside the orders that denied due course to the spouses’ notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals directed the RTC to give due course to the appeal.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether a writ of possession issued by the trial court can be enforced pending an appeal that has been given due course.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of possession can be enforced despite the pendency of an appeal. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a writ of possession issued after consolidation of title following an extrajudicial foreclosure. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 , as amended, the issuance of such a writ is a ministerial duty of the court once the foreclosure purchaser has consolidated ownership. This ministerial duty is not stayed by an appeal. The right to possess follows the right of ownership, which has already vested in the bank upon consolidation.
The Court clarified that an order granting or denying a motion to quash a writ of possession is interlocutory, not a final order that completely disposes of the case. Therefore, it is not appealable under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The proper remedy from an interlocutory order is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in directing the RTC to give due course to the spouses’ notice of appeal, as no such appeal lay from the interlocutory order. The enforcement of the writ of possession proceeds independently.