GR 228112; (September, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228112 September 13, 2017
SPOUSES ROSALINO R. REYES, JR. and SYLVIA S. REYES, Petitioners vs. SPOUSES HERBERT BUN HONG G. CHUNG and WIENNA T. CHUNG, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Reyes obtained a loan from Export and Industry Bank, Inc. (EIBI), secured by a real estate mortgage over their property in Quezon City. Upon default, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at public auction, with EIBI as the highest bidder. After the redemption period lapsed, title was consolidated in EIBI’s name. EIBI subsequently sold the property to LNC Corporation, which in turn sold it to respondent Spouses Chung. A new title was issued in the respondents’ names. The respondents demanded that the petitioners vacate the property, but the petitioners refused. The respondents initially filed an ejectment case, which was dismissed. They then filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession under Act No. 3135 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC granted the petition and issued the writ. The petitioners moved to quash the writ, arguing that the RTC had no jurisdiction because the respondents were not the original purchasers at the foreclosure sale and that the respondents committed forum shopping by filing the ex-parte petition while their appeal in the ejectment case was pending. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the respondents, as successors-in-interest, acquired all rights of the original purchaser, including the right to a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents, as subsequent purchasers of a foreclosed property, are entitled to a writ of possession under Act No. 3135.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The right to a writ of possession is a consequential right stemming from the foreclosure sale. Act No. 3135 provides that the purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property upon the filing of a petition and the posting of a bond. This right is absolute and ministerial upon the court once the statutory requirements are met. Crucially, this right is not personal to the original purchaser but is an incident of ownership that follows the property. When the respondents acquired the property from the original purchaser’s successor-in-interest, they stepped into the latter’s shoes and acquired all rights pertaining to the property, including the indefeasible right to possess it. The Court rejected the petitioners’ jurisdictional argument, holding that the ex-parte petition is a continuation of the registration or foreclosure proceeding, and the RTC properly exercised its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found no forum shopping, as the ejectment case and the petition for a writ of possession involved different causes of action and sought different reliefs. The petition for a writ is a summary proceeding intended to place the owner in possession, which is a ministerial duty of the court.