Spouses Camacho v. Philippine National Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Enrique R. Camacho and Angelina M. Camacho failed to pay their mortgage indebtedness to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Consequently, the Provincial Sheriff of Leyte extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgage on the spouses' property, with PNB emerging as the highest bidder at the sale held on June 2, 1995. The Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was registered on June 16, 1995, providing the spouses a one-year period for redemption. Procedural History: On October 30, 1995, PNB filed an ex-parte petition with the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 7, seeking a writ of possession. The trial court issued summons, and the spouses filed an answer with counterclaim. Despite a motion to transfer the hearing date, the trial court, on October 15, 1996, granted PNB's motion for a writ of possession upon posting a P500,000.00 bond. The spouses then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals to enjoin the enforcement of this order, arguing it was issued with grave abuse of discretion. On March 25, 1998, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that the spouses were not denied due process and that any such denial was cured, citing precedent that the right to possession would not be defeated by a pending challenge to the foreclosure sale's validity. The Petition: The Spouses Camacho filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, appealing the Court of Appeals' decision. They raised two main issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals' decision had attained finality and was thus unappealable, and (2) whether PNB, after its incorporation as a private bank, was entitled to a writ of possession for the foreclosed property under Act 3135, as amended, and P.D. No. 385. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Court of Appeals' decision had become final and executory due to the spouses' failure to file their motion for reconsideration or appeal within the reglementary period, and that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial and imperative act upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the bond.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals had attained finality and could no longer be appealed to the Supreme Court. Whether Philippine National Bank, after its incorporation as a private bank, is entitled to a writ of possession on the property which it extrajudicially foreclosed under Act 3135, as amended, and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 385.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It declared the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on March 25, 1998, in CA-G. R. SP No. 42580, as having become final and executory on April 17, 1998, and therefore, no longer appealable to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality of the Court of Appeals' decision: The Court found that the petitioners received notice of the CA decision on April 1, 1998, giving them until April 16, 1998, to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal. Their motion for an additional period to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on June 2, 1998, as the period for filing such a motion is non-extendible. Despite this, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on May 21, 1998, which was subsequently noted by the CA in view of its prior resolution. Ultimately, the CA denied due course to the motion for reconsideration on November 3, 1998. Therefore, the CA decision became final and executory on April 17, 1998, rendering the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court improper. On the entitlement to a writ of possession: The Court reiterated the established principle that the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, whether a government entity or a private bank, is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. This is consistent with the ruling in De Gracia v. San Jose, which states that the law expressly authorizes the purchaser to petition for a writ of possession ex parte during the redemption period. The issuance of the writ is ministerial and imperative upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the bond, with any questions regarding the sale's regularity and validity to be determined in a subsequent proceeding, not as a basis to oppose the issuance of the writ.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is issued as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the corresponding bond, and any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale is left to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.