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 of the foreclosure proceedings. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the RTC and quashed the writ of possession, ruling that the issue of the validity of the foreclosure sale (due to alleged lack of notice) should first be resolved in a separate proceeding before the writ may be issued.

ISSUE

Whether the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court, such that it may be granted ex parte and without hearing on the validity of the foreclosure sale.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the RTC order granting the writ of possession.

The Court held that after the expiration of the redemption period without the mortgagor having redeemed the property, the purchaser at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale has a clear right to the possession of the property. The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser is a ministerial duty of the court under Act No. 3135, as amended. The duty is ministerial because it is based on the purchaser’s absolute right to possession as the confirmed owner after the redemption period.

The alleged nullity of the foreclosure sale due to lack of notice does not affect the ministerial nature of the duty to issue the writ. Any question regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale and the consequent issuance of the certificate of sale must be determined in a subsequent proceeding, such as an action to annul the mortgage or the foreclosure sale. It cannot be raised as a ground to oppose the issuance of the writ of possession, which is a summary and ex parte proceeding. The mortgagor’s remedy is to file a separate action to annul the sale, and if successful, the court may then issue a writ of possession in their favor. Pending such annulment, the writ of possession in favor of the purchaser must be issued as a matter of right.