G.R. No. 213673. March 02, 2022
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. ALMA T. PLACENCIA FONTANOZA, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Spouses Salvador and Alma Fontanoza obtained a loan from petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB), secured by a mortgage over a parcel of land. Due to the spouses’ failure to pay, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the property and acquired it as the sole bidder in a public auction on January 8, 2002. The sale was registered on January 28, 2002, and the Fontanozas failed to redeem the property within the one-year period. More than nine years later, on July 18, 2011, PNB filed an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the petition in a Resolution dated August 17, 2011, which became final and executory on September 15, 2011. On November 25, 2011, respondent Alma Fontanoza filed an opposition with a motion to recall the writ of possession, alleging the existence of a contract with PNB for the repurchase of the property, partial payments made therefor, and that she had filed a separate case (Civil Case No. 2011-20-458) against PNB for annulment of the foreclosure or for repurchase. The RTC denied her opposition in an Order dated February 21, 2012, ruling that a pending annulment case does not bar the issuance of the writ. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC Order, applying the ruling in Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court and finding it inequitable to issue the writ given PNB’s delay in applying for it and the unresolved issue of repurchase. PNB’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the RTC Order denying respondent’s motion to recall the writ of possession, which was issued pursuant to a final and executory resolution.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC’s February 21, 2012 Order. The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the bond, once the redemption period expires without the mortgagor exercising the right of redemption. The pendency of a separate action for annulment of the mortgage or foreclosure sale does not bar this ministerial issuance. The case of Barican is inapplicable as it involved a property already in the possession of a third party (a vendee under a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage) before the registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale, creating an equitable situation warranting exception. Here, respondent is the mortgagor herself, not a third party. Her claim of a repurchase agreement and partial payments, which PNB denied, pertains to the ownership of the property, not its possession, and should be threshed out in the separate civil case she filed. The alleged delay of PNB in applying for the writ (over nine years) does not negate its right to the writ, as the right is not lost by mere passage of time. The RTC’s August 17, 2011 Resolution granting the writ had become final and executory; thus, the issuance of the writ was in order, and the CA improperly disturbed a final order. The writ of possession is a consequence of PNB’s consolidation of title after the foreclosure sale.