Samson v. Rivera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Spouses Rempson and Milagros Samson incurred substantial loan obligations with Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), secured by two real estate mortgages on five commercial properties in Antipolo City. Upon their failure to settle these debts, FEBTC initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages. The foreclosure sale proceeded, and Lenjul Realty Corporation emerged as the highest bidder, acquiring the properties for eighty million pesos. Subsequently, new Certificates of Title were issued in favor of Lenjul Realty Corporation. Procedural History: Following the issuance of new titles, Lenjul Realty Corporation filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, presided over by Judge Mauricio M. Rivera. The petitioners, Spouses Samson and Rempson Corporation, filed their opposition. Concurrently, petitioners also filed an action for Annulment of Extra-Judicial Foreclosure and Nullification of Sale and Titles with damages before another RTC branch, which was later ordered consolidated with the writ of possession case. However, Judge Rivera denied the consolidation and subsequently granted the Petition for a Writ of Possession, denying the petitioners' motions for reconsideration. A Writ of Possession and a Notice to Vacate were issued. Petitioners then filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the RTC orders. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that it was an improper remedy as there were other adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, specifically citing Section 8 of Act 3135, which allows for the setting aside of the sale and cancellation of the writ of possession. The CA also noted that certiorari was premature and that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function. Petitioners are now before this Court via a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and raising several issues concerning the validity of the foreclosure sale, the issuance of new titles, the application of redemption periods, and the denial of consolidation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the ruling ordering the immediate issuance of a writ of possession without requiring presentation of evidence and formal offer thereof. Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the ruling upholding the validity of the issuance of new titles despite consolidation of ownership prior to the expiration of the redemption period. Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the ruling upholding the 3-month period of redemption for juridical mortgagors under the General Banking Act of 2000 and its retroactive application. Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the ruling refusing consolidation of the annulment case with the writ of possession case. Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the ruling giving due course to the petition for writ of possession despite Lenjul Realty Corporation not being the winning bidder; and whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the ruling ignoring rules that foreclosed properties should be sold separately and not en masse. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the special civil action for certiorari on grounds of technicalities rather than merits; and whether the allegation that the RTC issued the writ without receiving evidence has merit.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Writ of Possession: The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure sales is explicitly authorized by Act 3135. Under Section 7 of the Act, the purchaser may petition the RTC for possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath, furnishing a bond. Upon approval of the bond, the court is directed to issue the writ. The Court reiterated its consistent holding that the trial court's duty to grant a writ of possession is ministerial, issuing as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the bond. Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding under Section 8 of Act 3135 and cannot be raised to oppose the issuance of the writ. The purchaser becomes the absolute owner after consolidation of ownership and issuance of a new title, making possession an absolute right, even rendering the bond unnecessary. On the effect of a pending annulment case: The Court affirmed that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession. Therefore, the contention that the RTC should have consolidated the cases and resolved the annulment case prior to issuing the writ was unavailing. The Court clarified that its ruling in Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals did not declare that the writ of possession must be stayed until questions on the mortgage or foreclosure sale were resolved. The original document does not provide a ratio decidendi for the third issue. Therefore, I cannot provide a ratio for the third issue. On the effect of a pending annulment case: The Court affirmed that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession. Therefore, the contention that the RTC should have consolidated the cases and resolved the annulment case prior to issuing the writ was unavailing. The Court clarified that its ruling in Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals did not declare that the writ of possession must be stayed until questions on the mortgage or foreclosure sale were resolved. The original document does not provide a ratio decidendi for the fifth issue. Therefore, I cannot provide a ratio for the fifth issue. On the proper remedy; and On the alleged lack of evidence: The Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly declared that petitioners pursued the wrong remedy by filing a special civil action for certiorari. Certiorari is available only when the lower tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Since the trial court issued the writ in compliance with Act 3135, it did not act in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the proper remedy should have been an ordinary appeal, as errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, while errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari. The Court found no merit in the allegation that the RTC issued the writ without receiving evidence. The documents submitted provided sufficient basis for the trial court's ruling, and despite the ex parte nature of the proceedings, the RTC allowed petitioners to file pleadings in opposition.
Main Doctrine
The buyer in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the purchased property, and any question regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage and foreclosure sale may be determined only after the issuance of the writ of possession. The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court, and a pending action for annulment of the mortgage or foreclosure does not stay its issuance.