Santiago v. Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The respondent, Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc., initiated proceedings after the petitioner spouses, Ruben and Inocencia Santiago, defaulted on loans secured by a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land. The bank foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially, becoming the highest bidder at the public auction held on February 16, 1998. After the redemption period expired without the petitioners repurchasing the property, the bank consolidated ownership and obtained new titles. 2. Procedural History: The respondent bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City. The petitioners, though aware of the petition, failed to file an opposition but instead sought more time to repurchase the property. The RTC granted the petition and issued a writ of possession. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's order for allegedly being issued without evidence. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the CA's decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the writ of possession without any evidence being formally offered. They contend that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's order despite the lack of evidence. The respondent bank counters that a petition for a writ of possession is an ex parte and summary proceeding where formal offering of evidence is not mandatory, and that the issuance of such a writ is a ministerial function of the court after extrajudicial foreclosure.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the spouses Santiago. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in granting the petition for a writ of possession without formal offer of evidence. Whether the RTC's Order dated September 1, 2000, is null and void for failing to state the facts and law on which it is based.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari. Under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, the proper remedy for the petitioners from the RTC's order granting the writ of possession was to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, with the option to appeal any disposition by the court on the matter. The recourse to a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 was inappropriate because a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy by appeal was available. The Court emphasized that appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive remedies. Even if an appeal is interposed from an order granting a writ of possession, such order continues to be in effect during the pendency of the appeal, as mandated by Section 8 of Act No. 3135. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for lack of formal offer of evidence: The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' contention that they were deprived of due process. The Court reiterated that a proceeding for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature, designed to provide immediate relief to the purchaser without affording the adverse party an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the RTC may grant the petition even in the absence of the mortgagor. The law does not require the formal offering of documentary and testimonial evidence in support of a petition for a writ of possession before the trial court may act upon and grant the same. As long as the verified petition states sufficient facts to entitle the petitioner to the relief requested, the court shall issue the writ. The respondent bank's petition averred the essential facts, including the extrajudicial foreclosure, the auction sale, the registration of certificates of sale, the failure to redeem, and the consolidation of ownership, which were sufficient to warrant the issuance of the writ. On the alleged nullity of the RTC's Order for failing to state facts and law: The Supreme Court considered this contention as a mere afterthought, as it was not raised in the lower courts but only before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court found that the RTC's order, by granting the petition based on its finding that it was sufficient in form and substance, implicitly incorporated by reference the material allegations of the petition. This constituted substantial compliance with Rule 36, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. The Court also noted that the petitioners were present during the hearing, failed to assail the petition's form and substance, and even requested time to repurchase the property, thereby acknowledging the bank's claim and the pendency of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial function of the court, and the court does not exercise discretion or judgment in granting it. The proceeding is ex parte and summary in nature, and does not require the formal offering of documentary and testimonial evidence.