De Gracia v. San Jose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Eugenio S. De Gracia, is the registered owner of a property that was sold at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale on November 14, 1952, to Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., as the highest bidder. This sale was conducted by the Sheriff of Manila pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, following a mortgage constituted on the property in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. Procedural History: Following the foreclosure sale, the purchaser, Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., filed an ex-parte motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking possession of the property during the redemption period, as authorized by Section 7 of Act No. 3135. The petitioner filed an opposition and a separate complaint to annul the sale, requesting a dismissal or postponement of the possession petition. The lower court, however, authorized the issuance of the writ of possession upon the filing of a bond, stating it was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to question the sale's validity. The Petition: Contending that the lower court acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the writ of possession, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari and prohibition from this Court. The petitioner argues that the lower court erred in granting possession during the redemption period, while the respondent asserts that the court merely followed the express provisions of Act No. 3135, which allows for such a writ on an ex-parte motion and bond, with any challenges to the sale to be resolved in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the issuance of a writ of possession during the redemption period. Whether the rule that a purchaser at a judicial public auction is not entitled to possession during the period of redemption is applicable to sales under Act No. 3135.
Ruling
The petition is without merit and is dismissed. The lower court did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The rule regarding possession during the redemption period in judicial auctions does not apply to sales under Act No. 3135, as amended.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the lower court acted in accordance with an express provision of law, specifically Sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended. These provisions explicitly authorize the purchaser to petition for a writ of possession during the redemption period through an ex-parte motion, upon filing a bond. The law directs the court to issue the writ upon approval of the bond, leaving no discretion to the court. Therefore, the judge merely followed the law and cannot be charged with acting without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The validity of the sale is a matter to be determined in a subsequent proceeding, as stated by the lower court in its order, which was "without prejudice to the rights of the oppositor to question the validity of the above mentioned sale in the manner provided by law." On the applicability of the rule regarding possession during redemption: The Court clarified that the rule that a purchaser at a judicial public auction is not entitled to possession during the period of redemption is not applicable to sales conducted under Act No. 3135, as amended. This is because Act No. 3135 expressly authorizes the granting of possession during the redemption period. The Court distinguished this from previous rulings where such writs were refused if the mortgage was constituted prior to the amendatory Act, citing the principle that civil laws have no retroactive effect unless provided. In this case, the mortgage was constituted after the effectivity of Act No. 3135, making its provisions applicable.
Main Doctrine
Under Act No. 3135, as amended, the issuance of a writ of possession during the redemption period is a ministerial act upon the filing of an ex-parte motion and the approval of a bond, and any question regarding the validity of the sale must be raised in a subsequent proceeding.