G.R. No. 184045; January 22, 2014
SPOUSES NICASIO C. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J. MARQUEZ, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES CARLITO ALINDOG AND CARMEN ALINDOG, Respondents.

FACTS

In June 1998, petitioner Anita J. Marquez extended a loan to Benjamin Gutierrez, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land in Tagaytay City covered by TCT No. T-13443 under Gutierrez’s name. The mortgage was duly annotated, and the title was verified as clean. Upon Gutierrez’s default, Anita extra-judicially foreclosed the property and emerged as the highest bidder at the auction on January 19, 2000. After the redemption period lapsed, title was consolidated under TCT No. T-41939 in Anita’s name on November 5, 2001. However, this new title bore an annotation of an adverse claim dated March 2, 2000, in the names of respondents Spouses Alindog, which was copied from an annotation made on the original title after the mortgage to the Marquezes.
On March 21, 2000, the Alindogs filed a civil case for annulment of the real estate mortgage and certificate of sale (Civil Case No. TG-1966), alleging they had purchased the property from Gutierrez in September 1989 but were deceived by a third party, Agripina Gonzales, who failed to secure the title in their name. They also averred that Gutierrez was already dead when the mortgage was executed.
On March 16, 2005, Anita filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession (LRC Case No. TG-05-1068), which the RTC granted on August 1, 2005. A notice to vacate was served on the Alindogs on September 27, 2005. The Alindogs then filed a separate case (SCA No. TG-05-2521) seeking a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Although a 72-hour TRO was issued, the writ of possession was implemented on November 11, 2005, and possession was turned over to the Marquezes.
Subsequently, the RTC, in an Order dated November 14, 2005, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the Marquezes from taking possession of the property until the controversy was resolved, finding that the Alindogs had shown a prima facie right to be protected. The RTC denied the Marquezes’ motion for reconsideration and granted the Alindogs’ motion to approve a cash bond and regain possession in an Order dated January 17, 2007. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court when it issued the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the petitioners from taking possession of the property despite the consolidation of title in their favor.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court upon proper application and the expiration of the redemption period. The purchaser’s right to possession is absolute and becomes imperative upon the consolidation of title. The pendency of a separate action for annulment of the mortgage or sale does not divest the court of its ministerial duty to issue the writ, nor does it justify the issuance of an injunction against it. The trial court’s issuance of the injunctive writ, which interfered with the enforcement of a final and executory order (the writ of possession), constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Alindogs’ remedy was not to restrain the writ of possession but to pursue their action for annulment and seek damages if they prevail. The orders of the RTC dated November 14, 2005, and January 17, 2007, and the consequent CA Decision and Resolution, were set aside.