Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Pardo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The private respondents, spouses Celedonio and Celedonia Cacas, obtained a loan from petitioner Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, securing it with a mortgage on a parcel of land. The spouses defaulted on their loan payments, leaving an outstanding balance. Consequently, the bank initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, becoming the highest bidder at the subsequent auction sale. 2. Procedural History: Following the auction sale and registration of the certificate of sale, the petitioner bank filed a petition for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135. During the pendency of this petition, one of the mortgagors, Celedonio Cacas, passed away. The respondent court ordered the petitioner to substitute the deceased party, but the petitioner failed to comply. This non-compliance led the lower court to dismiss the petition for the writ of possession. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the bank to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to assail the order of the respondent judge dismissing its petition for a writ of possession. The bank argues that under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as the purchaser at the auction sale, it is entitled to a writ of possession pending the redemption period upon a simple ex parte motion and posting of a bond, with no discretion left to the court. The petitioner contends that an ejectment case is unnecessary and that the mortgagors' recourse is to have the sale set aside and the writ of possession cancelled as per Section 8 of the Act.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court erred in dismissing the petition for a writ of possession. Whether the petitioner bank, as the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, is entitled to a writ of possession pending the lapse of the redemption period.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The orders dated March 13, 1980, and September 29, 1980, are SET ASIDE. The respondent court is ordered to issue the writ of possession upon the petitioner's filing and approval of the bond pursuant to Section 7 of Act No. 3135.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent court's dismissal of the petition for a writ of possession: The Supreme Court held that the respondent court erred in dismissing the petition. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the purchaser at an auction sale, in this instance, the petitioner/mortgagee, is entitled to a writ of possession pending the lapse of the redemption period upon a simple motion and upon the posting of a bond. The Court emphasized that in such cases, "no discretion is left to the court." The petition for a writ of possession is meant to be an "ex parte" motion, which was the recourse taken by the petitioner. Therefore, there was no necessity for the petitioner to file an ejectment case. The remedy for the mortgagors-respondents was to have "the sale . . set aside and the writ of possession cancelled," in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. The proceedings being ex parte, the Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the question of the effect of the death of one of the mortgagors. On the issue of the petitioner bank's entitlement to a writ of possession: The Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to a writ of possession. The Court reiterated that Section 7 of Act No. 3135 grants the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale the right to a writ of possession pending the expiration of the redemption period. This right is exercisable through a simple ex parte motion, provided a bond is posted. The Court's pronouncement in Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court was cited, which stated that such a petition leaves "no discretion" to the court. The dismissal of the petition by the lower court was therefore contrary to the clear mandate of the law.
Main Doctrine
Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, including the mortgagee, is entitled to a writ of possession pending the lapse of the redemption period upon a simple ex parte motion and the posting of a bond, leaving no discretion to the court.