G.R. No. 73338 . January 21, 1992. ROMEO F. VELOSO, DELIA M. VELOSO and GLOBE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., respondents.
FACTS

Petitioners Romeo and Delia Veloso owned a house and lot covered by TCT No. 136559. They mortgaged the property to private respondent State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) to secure a P200,000.00 loan extended to Globe Engineering Corporation, where Romeo Veloso was President. Due to non-payment, SIHI extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. After publication and notice, a public auction was held on December 4, 1980, with SIHI as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued. The redemption period expired without petitioners redeeming the property. SIHI consolidated ownership, and a new title was issued in its name.
Prior to the foreclosure, petitioners filed a civil action in Manila (Civil Case No. 136559) seeking the nullification or reformation of the mortgage contracts and later the annulment of the foreclosure sale. Meanwhile, after the redemption period, SIHI filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession in the Quezon City RTC. The court, instead of proceeding ex parte, required service on petitioners. After receiving oppositions, the court granted the writ. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the loan terms were violated and that fire insurance proceeds should extinguish the obligation. The court denied their motions and issued an alias writ. Petitioners were eventually ejected but regained possession via a temporary restraining order from the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of a separate civil action for annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale constitutes a valid ground to deny the issuance of a writ of possession to the mortgagee-purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure.

RULING

No. The issuance of a writ of possession to a mortgagee who has extrajudicially foreclosed the property is a ministerial duty of the court. This right is vested upon the mortgagee-purchaser upon application, even during the redemption period, and more so after its expiration and the consolidation of title. The law, Act No. 3135 , is explicit on this point. The pendency of a separate action challenging the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale does not bar the issuance of the writ. Such an action is not a sufficient legal ground for denial or suspension. The court’s duty is ministerial, not discretionary, once the foreclosure sale is accomplished and the redemption period has lapsed. The validity of petitioners’ claims in the civil case is a distinct matter to be resolved therein, but it does not affect the mortgagee’s immediate right to possession derived from the foreclosure. The IAC correctly dismissed the petition, as the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ.