G.R. No. 192377; July 25, 2012
CESAR V. MADRIAGA, JR., Petitioner, vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

The dispute involves two parcels of land originally owned by spouses Rolando and Norma Trajano. In 1991, they agreed to sell the properties to Cesar Madriaga, Sr., petitioner’s father. After a legal battle for specific performance, a 1994 compromise judgment was rendered. The spouses Trajano failed to comply, leading to an execution sale where Madriaga, Sr. was declared the winning bidder in 1995. After the redemption period, titles were issued in his name in 1996, and he secured a writ of possession in 1997. Unbeknownst to Madriaga, Sr., the spouses Trajano had mortgaged the same properties to China Bank in January 1995, while the notice of levy from Madriaga, Sr.’s execution was pending annotation. Upon the spouses’ default, China Bank foreclosed the mortgage in 1997, consolidated title, and obtained new certificates. In 2002, China Bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession, which was granted.
Madriaga, Sr. (and later his successor, the petitioner) opposed the writ, asserting prior ownership via the execution sale and arguing China Bank’s mortgage was void as it was executed after the levy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to quash the writ, ruling the issuance was ministerial and that the writ had already been satisfied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, stating the motion was moot as possession had been delivered to China Bank. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession to China Bank and in denying the motion to quash it, despite petitioner’s claim of a superior right of ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts. The issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court. The duty is compelled once the foreclosure purchaser files the proper ex parte petition and posts the required bond. The proceeding is summary in nature, and the court does not adjudicate conflicting claims of ownership at this stage. Any such claims must be ventilated in a separate, substantive action. Here, petitioner’s claim of a better right, based on the prior execution sale, is a collateral attack on China Bank’s title, which is improper in the summary writ of possession proceedings.
The Court emphasized that the writ of possession had already been implemented, rendering the petition to quash it moot and academic. The proper recourse for petitioner, who claims to be the true owner, was to file a separate action for reconveyance or to assert his rights in the pending specific performance case (Civil Case No. 406-M-2002), not to oppose the ministerial issuance of the writ. The RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion, as it correctly limited its role in the ex parte proceeding to the ministerial act of placing the foreclosure purchaser in possession. The existence of a conflicting claim does not negate the ministerial nature of the duty to issue the writ upon compliance with the legal requirements.