GR 196040; (August, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196040 , August 26, 2014
FE H. OKABE, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO A. SATURNINO, Respondent.
FACTS
The subject property is an 81-square meter lot in Makati City, originally owned by the wife of respondent Ernesto A. Saturnino. The couple obtained a loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) secured by a mortgage on the property. Due to loan default, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The Certificate of Sale was inscribed on August 24, 1999. The respondent failed to redeem the property, leading to the consolidation of ownership in favor of PNB on October 13, 2006, and the issuance of a new TCT in PNB’s name. Without taking possession, PNB sold the property to petitioner Fe H. Okabe on June 17, 2008, and a new TCT was issued in her name on August 13, 2008. On November 27, 2008, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC of Makati. The RTC granted the petition and issued the writ, which was implemented on July 20, 2010, after finding the property abandoned. Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which granted the petition and vacated the RTC’s orders, ruling that an ex-parte writ of possession under Act No. 3135 is available only to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale (PNB) and not to a subsequent buyer like petitioner. The CA permanently enjoined petitioner from proceeding via an ex-parte motion for a writ of possession.
ISSUE
Whether or not, in the case at bar, an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was the proper remedy of the petitioner in obtaining possession of the subject property.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that while the ex-parte writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is a special right available only to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale (or its successor-in-interest by reason of the consolidation of ownership) during the redemption period, a subsequent buyer like the petitioner, who purchased the property after the consolidation of title in the name of the foreclosure sale purchaser (PNB), is not entitled to such summary proceeding. The proper remedy for such a subsequent buyer is to file an ordinary action for ejectment or for recovery of possession. However, in this specific case, the Court found the issue had been rendered moot and academic because the writ of possession had already been fully implemented, and the petitioner was already in possession of the property as its registered owner. The Court emphasized that the respondent, having failed to redeem the property, had no right to remain in possession, and requiring the petitioner to file a separate action for ejectment would be a needless prolongation of proceedings. Thus, the CA’s ruling was set aside.