Philippine National Bank v. Adil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angelina Lobaton Melliza obtained a loan from Philippine National Bank (PNB) secured by a mortgage over two parcels of land. Upon failure to pay, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, purchased the properties, and consolidated ownership. PNB then filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession, which was granted. Procedural History: The Sheriff served the writ of possession, but private respondents requested a grace period to vacate. Upon their failure to comply, the Sheriff proceeded with ejectment. However, the respondent judge issued an order motu proprio suspending the writ's implementation for "humanitarian reasons." Subsequently, private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure and writ of possession, which was consolidated with the original case. The respondent judge issued further orders restraining PNB from disturbing the status quo and granting a preliminary injunction. PNB's motions for reconsideration and dismissal were denied. The Petition: This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the injunctive orders issued by the respondent judge and to enforce the writ of possession in favor of PNB.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in issuing the injunctive orders suspending the enforcement of the writ of possession. Whether the enforcement of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale is ministerial upon the court. Whether P.D. No. 385 mandates the court to place a government financial institution in possession of foreclosed property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside all the injunctive orders issued by the respondent judge and ordering the respondent judge to place the petitioner (PNB) in possession of the purchased property without delay.
Ratio Decidendi
On the grave abuse of discretion in issuing injunctive orders: The Court held that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the orders suspending the enforcement of the writ of possession. The Court emphasized that the enforcement of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court, citing De los Angeles vs. Court of Appeals and De Gracia vs. San Jose. The suspension of the writ based on "humanitarian reasons," issued motu proprio and without affording PNB the right to be heard, was deemed a gross error and an act not within the bounds of the law. The Court reiterated that such orders, akin to injunctions, must be issued with circumspection and upon proper motion. On the ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession: The Court affirmed that it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, provided the legal requirements are met. This right is founded on the purchaser's right of ownership (jus possidendi), as provided in Article 428 of the Civil Code. After the redemption period expires and a new title is issued, the purchaser is entitled to possession, and it is the Sheriff's inescapable duty to enforce the writ. The Court cited Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court and Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, which support this ministerial duty. On the mandate of P.D. No. 385: The Court underscored that P.D. No. 385, enacted to facilitate the early collection of delinquent loans from government financial institutions, mandates that foreclosed properties be placed in the possession and control of the financial institution. Section 4 of P.D. No. 385 explicitly states that the Petition for Writ of Possession shall be acted upon by the court within fifteen (15) days from filing. To enjoin PNB from taking possession would render nugatory the provisions of this decree, particularly Section 2, which restricts the issuance of restraining orders or injunctions against government financial institutions except under strict conditions not met in this case.
Main Doctrine
The enforcement of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale is ministerial upon the court, and its execution cannot be suspended or restrained by injunctive orders, especially when P.D. No. 385 mandates that government financial institutions be placed in possession of foreclosed properties.