GR 172504; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172504; July 31, 2013
Donna C. Nagtalon, Petitioner, vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Donna C. Nagtalon and her spouse obtained a loan from respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), secured by real estate mortgages. Upon default, UCPB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgages. The properties were sold at public auction to UCPB as the highest bidder. After the one-year redemption period lapsed without redemption, UCPB consolidated ownership, and new titles were issued in its name.
UCPB filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Nagtalon opposed, citing a pending civil case (Civil Case No. 6602) where she challenged the validity of the credit agreement’s interest rates and sought nullification of the foreclosure. The RTC held the issuance of the writ in abeyance, ruling that its duty ceased to be ministerial due to the pending case. UCPB filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of a civil case challenging the validity of the credit agreement and foreclosure can bar the issuance of a writ of possession after the lapse of the redemption period.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, after the redemption period has expired and title has been consolidated, is a ministerial duty of the court. This ministerial function proceeds from the purchaser’s right as the confirmed owner under Act No. 3135, as amended.
The pendency of a separate action questioning the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure does not, by itself, constitute a valid exception to this ministerial rule. Exceptions require clear and compelling equitable circumstances, such as a third-party claim to possession or a showing that the foreclosure sale was patently void. Nagtalon’s pending civil case, which essentially seeks to annul the foreclosure based on alleged usurious interest, does not qualify as such a peculiar or equitable circumstance. A challenge to the interest rate or the underlying debt does not render the foreclosure sale or the transfer of title void but merely voidable. Consequently, the trial court has no discretion to defer the issuance of the writ. The purchaser’s right to possession is a necessary incident of its consolidated ownership.