Alarilla v. Ocampo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Isidro de Guzman and Andrea E. Enriquez owned a parcel of land in Manila. After Andrea's death, Isidro and their daughter Rosario de Guzman, married to Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr., mortgaged the property to secure a loan from Spouses Reynaldo C. Ocampo and Josephine C. Llave. Following Isidro's death, the mortgagors defaulted on the loan. The Ocampos initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, and the property was sold at public auction to them. After the redemption period expired without redemption, the Ocampos consolidated their ownership and obtained a new title. Subsequently, Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr., and their children filed a complaint against the Ocampos, alleging the mortgage and subsequent sale were null and void because the property was a family home and the mortgage lacked the required consent of the beneficiaries. They also claimed the sale price was excessive and offered to redeem the property for a lesser amount. Procedural History: The Ocampos filed a petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 4, which was granted. The Alarillas filed an amended complaint seeking to nullify the certificate of sale, the definite deed of sale, and the new title issued to the Ocampos, and to make a previously issued injunction permanent. Concurrently, Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr. moved to set aside the writ of possession order. The RTC denied this motion. The Alarillas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's order. The CA later denied their motion for reconsideration. The Alarillas then filed a motion for extension of time with the Supreme Court to file their petition for review. The Petition: The petitioners, the Alarillas, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argued that the CA erred in upholding the writ of possession, contending that the mortgage was void under Article 158 of the Family Code due to the lack of consent from the family home beneficiaries. They also asserted that Section 7 of Act No. 3135, regarding writs of possession, was repealed by the Family Code and that they could not be ousted without an ordinary action for recovery of possession. The petitioners sought to have the foreclosure sale and the new title declared null and void and to have the family home declared free from encumbrances.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the issuance of a writ of possession despite the pending action to nullify the foreclosure proceedings. Whether the alleged status of the property as a family home or the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure sale can be raised as a ground to refuse the issuance of a writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is denied due to lack of merit. The Court of Appeals' decision is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court ruled that the petitioners' motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court provides that if the last day of a period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time is extended to the next working day. Since March 18, 2000, the last day to file, was a Saturday, the petitioners had until March 20, 2000, the following Monday, to file their motion. Therefore, the motion was seasonably filed, and the issue of timeliness did not bar the petition from being considered on its merits. On the issuance of the writ of possession and the validity of the mortgage/foreclosure: The Court held that the petition fails on the merits. The one-year period for redemption had lapsed, and the respondent, as the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, had consolidated ownership and was entitled to possession as a matter of right. The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function of the court once title has been consolidated. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the writ of possession issued by the trial court must be enforced without delay and cannot be stymied by the petitioners raising issues already presented in their separate civil case. The petitioners' failure to oppose the petition for a writ of possession in the lower court, and instead filing a separate complaint for nullification, did not prevent the enforcement of the writ. The right to possession of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, after consolidation of title, is absolute and can be enforced through a writ of possession. On the refusal of the writ of possession due to pending action and the validity of the mortgage/foreclosure: The Court held that any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale cannot serve as a legal basis to refuse the issuance of a writ of possession. Such issues must be resolved in a separate ordinary action, like the Civil Case No. 95-75769 filed by the petitioners, without prejudice to the outcome of that case.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function of the court after the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name, and any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure sale cannot be a ground for refusing the writ.