Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of Communications
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jeffrey Dayrit and his wife obtained a P15 million loan from respondent Philippine Bank of Communications, posting their house and lot as collateral. Upon failure to pay the obligation, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, became the highest bidder at the auction sale, and subsequently consolidated the titles in its name after the redemption period expired. The Dayrits refused to vacate the property. Procedural History: The respondent bank filed a petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Although initially appearing and expressing intent to pay, the Dayrits subsequently failed to attend hearings. The RTC allowed the bank to present evidence ex parte and issued a writ of possession. The Dayrits' motion for reconsideration was denied. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal as late and without merit, affirming the RTC's writ of possession. The CA ruled that the appeal was filed beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period and that the legality of the mortgage contract could not be questioned in a petition for a writ of possession. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the CA's decision, arguing that he was denied due process due to the ex parte presentation of evidence and the issuance of the writ of possession without proper notice. He also contends that his appeal was not belatedly filed. The petition raises questions of law regarding the propriety of ex parte evidence presentation in a writ of possession case, the ministerial nature of issuing such a writ, and the finality of the RTC decision given the circumstances of notice and appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was denied due process of law and whether the ex parte presentation of evidence by respondent was proper. Whether the trial court had a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession. Whether petitioner's appeal was belatedly filed.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of due process and propriety of ex parte presentation of evidence: The Court found that petitioner was not denied due process. While he initially participated, he failed to appear in subsequent hearings despite receiving notices of the resetting of hearings from January 12, 1995, to February 16, 1995, and from February 16 to March 9, 1995. The records also showed he was furnished the order deeming the case submitted for decision. His failure to attend the hearing on March 9, 1995, when respondent presented its evidence, was his own neglect, leaving the trial court no recourse but to allow the presentation ex parte. The Court reiterated that due process requires an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to the petitioner. On the ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession: The Court affirmed that the issuance of a writ of possession in cases of extrajudicial foreclosure after the consolidation of title is a ministerial function. Citing Ong v. Court of Appeals and other cases, the Court stated that such an order issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the bond. The judge issuing the order cannot be charged with acting without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the implementation of the writ by the sheriff is also ministerial. On the belated filing of the appeal: The Court found petitioner's claim of not receiving the decision hollow. The registry return card showed he received a copy of the decision on September 15, 1995. His motion for reconsideration was filed 32 days later, on October 17, 1995, which was beyond the 15-day reglementary period for appeal under Section 8(a) of the Interim Rules and Section 3, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court also noted that notices had consistently been served on both petitioner and his spouse, and he did not protest this manner of service earlier, thus estopping him from raising the issue late. Consequently, the appeal filed after the denial of the motion for reconsideration was already beyond the reglementary period, and the decision had long become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession after foreclosure is a ministerial function of the court. Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory, and the right to appeal is a statutory right that must be complied with.