G.R. No. 206598 , September 04, 2019
Spouses Salvador Batolinio and Amor P. Batolinio, represented by Roy B. Pantaleon as Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioners, vs. Sheriff Janet Yap-Rosas and Philippine Savings Bank, Respondents.

FACTS

Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession after it extrajudicially foreclosed a real estate mortgage executed by Nicefora Miñoza over a Las Piñas property. PSBank was the highest bidder at the auction, and after the redemption period, consolidated title in its name. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition. Spouses Salvador and Amor Batolinio filed an Omnibus Motion, claiming they were the original owners of the property. They alleged they mortgaged it to Union Bank and later agreed to sell it to Miñoza under certain conditions, but that Miñoza, in cahoots with others, forged the deed of sale. They filed an adverse claim and a civil case for cancellation of title against Miñoza. They argued they were third parties in adverse possession who could not be dispossessed without a hearing and that PSBank was not a mortgagee in good faith. The RTC denied their motion, ruling the writ’s issuance was ministerial after the finality of its decision and the expiration of the redemption period. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Batolinios’ petition for certiorari, ruling they had parted with ownership via an absolute sale to Miñoza and thus were not adverse claimants, and that questions on the mortgage’s validity were not grounds to deny the writ.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petitioners are not “third parties actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor” and that the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of PSBank was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial duty of the court after the expiration of the one-year redemption period, provided no third party is holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor. A “third party” refers to one in possession of the property under a claim of right in their own capacity, such as a co-owner, tenant, or usufructuary. The Batolinios are not such third parties. By their own allegations, they sold the property to Miñoza. Any claim they have arises from the alleged forgery of that sale, which is a challenge to Miñoza’s title, not a demonstration of their own independent adverse right of possession. Such a claim, which seeks to annul the sale and subsequent transactions, does not constitute adverse holding under the law. Until the foreclosure sale is annulled in a proper proceeding, the purchaser’s right to possession is absolute. The pendency of the Batolinios’ civil case against Miñoza does not bar the ministerial issuance of the writ. Their attack on PSBank’s good faith is irrelevant in the ex parte proceeding for a writ of possession, as the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure is not a ground for its denial.