G.R. No. 101083
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES FORTUNATO and VIRGINIA VANGUARDIA, respondents.

July 30, 1996

FACTS

Spouses Fortunato and Virginia Vanguardia obtained a loan from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. They defaulted on the loan. Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property as the highest bidder at the public auction. The one-year redemption period expired without the spouses redeeming the property. Metrobank then filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted. The spouses Vanguardia filed a motion to quash the writ, arguing that the foreclosure and auction sale were void because they were not properly notified. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the RTC and quashed the writ of possession, ruling that the issuance of the writ was improper because the validity of the foreclosure sale was being contested on jurisdictional grounds (lack of notice).

ISSUE

Whether the trial court may issue a writ of possession ex parte after the expiration of the redemption period, even when the mortgagor raises the issue of the validity of the foreclosure sale based on lack of notice.

RULING

Yes. The petition for a writ of possession is granted.

The Court held that after the expiration of the redemption period, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale (in this case, the mortgagee-bank) has the absolute right to a writ of possession as a matter of course, upon ex parte application and without need of a hearing. The duty of the trial court to issue the writ is ministerial. The writ may be issued regardless of whether the mortgagor is in possession or not.

The pendency of an action questioning the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale does not bar the issuance of the writ. The right to possession is based on the purchaser’s ownership acquired at the foreclosure sale, which becomes absolute upon the mortgagor’s failure to redeem. Any question regarding the regularity or validity of the sale is irrelevant to the issuance of the writ. Such questions must be raised in a separate proceeding, and the proper recourse of the mortgagor is not to oppose the writ of possession but to file a separate action to annul the mortgage or foreclosure sale, if warranted. In such a case, the court may issue a preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the writ during the pendency of the annulment case.

Here, the spouses Vanguardia’s claim of lack of notice pertains to the validity of the foreclosure sale, which is a matter that must be litigated in a separate action. It cannot be raised as a ground to oppose the ex parte issuance of the writ of possession after the redemption period has lapsed. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in quashing the writ. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the order of the RTC issuing the writ of possession was reinstated.