G.R. No. 178288 ; August 15, 2012
SPOUSES CHARLIE FORTALEZA and OFELIA FORTALEZA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN and RONA LAPITAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Fortaleza obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. Upon default, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed. At the public auction, respondents Spouses Lapitan, the children of the original mortgagees, emerged as the highest bidders. A certificate of sale was issued and duly registered. After the expiration of the redemption period without redemption by the petitioners, the respondents consolidated ownership, secured a new title in their names, and demanded possession. The petitioners refused to vacate.
Respondents filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Petitioners opposed, contesting the validity of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale, alleging exorbitant interest and procedural defects in the posting requirements. The RTC granted the writ, ruling it was a ministerial duty after consolidation of title. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the issuance of the writ of possession despite the petitioners’ challenges to the validity of the foreclosure proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed judgments. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial function of the court once the statutory conditions are met: the foreclosure was conducted under Act No. 3135 , the property was sold, the certificate of sale was registered, the debtor failed to redeem within the period, and a final deed of sale was executed. These conditions were conclusively established by the respondents’ presentation of the certificate of sale, affidavit of consolidation, and the new transfer certificate of title. The proceeding for the writ is ex parte, summary, and non-adversarial. Challenges to the validity of the mortgage or the regularity of the foreclosure sale, such as claims of invalid posting or excessive interest, do not constitute legal grounds to oppose the ministerial issuance of the writ. Such defenses must be raised in a separate judicial action to annul the sale or to assert the nullity of the mortgage. The court’s duty to issue the writ is categorical and imperative upon the showing of the purchaser’s right as the confirmed owner. The petitioners’ claim of the property being a family home was also correctly rejected, as a family home constituted on a property already encumbered by a mortgage is not exempt from foreclosure. The proper recourse for the petitioners is a separate action to question the foreclosure’s validity, not an opposition in the summary possessory proceedings.