Idolor v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teresita V. Idolor obtained a loan from respondent-spouses Gumersindo and Iluminada De Guzman, secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon petitioner's default, respondent-spouses initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings, emerging as the highest bidder. Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the Certificate of Sale, which was initially granted a writ of preliminary injunction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the injunction for grave abuse of discretion, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court. Procedural History: Following the consolidation of title in their name, respondent-spouses moved for the issuance of a writ of possession before the RTC. The RTC denied the motion, stating that the lifting of the injunction did not automatically entitle them to possession and only allowed for the issuance of a final deed of sale and consolidation of title. The CA reversed the RTC's order, finding that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion, as the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function and the pendency of an action questioning the sale cannot bar its issuance after title consolidation. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's decision, raising issues regarding the RTC's jurisdiction over the motion for a writ of possession despite alleged non-payment of docket fees and whether a mortgagee, as a defendant, can apply for a writ of possession by mere motion in the same annulment case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction on the motion of the mortgagee to apply for a writ of possession notwithstanding non-payment of docket fees, considering the nature of the proceeding and the timing of the objection. Whether the mortgagee, by mere motion, not by a petition, may apply for a writ of possession in the same case for annulment of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of which he is a defendant, and the effect of the pendency of such annulment case on the issuance of the writ.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, is ordered to issue a writ of possession in favor of respondent-spouses Gumersindo and Iluminada De Guzman.
Ratio Decidendi
On jurisdiction and non-payment of docket fees: The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction because the property is located there. Branches of the RTC are coordinate, and jurisdiction is vested in the court. The allegation of non-payment of docket fees, raised late, should be disallowed. The fees under Act 3135 pertain to land title registration, not court fees. An ex parte petition for a possessory writ is non-litigious and summary, allowing relaxation of fee rules to avoid injustice. Fees can be assessed later. On the procedure for a writ of possession and the pendency of an annulment case: A writ of possession is issued upon motion in extrajudicial foreclosure. After consolidation of title, the purchaser's right to possession is absolute, and the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial function. The pendency of an annulment case is not a bar to the issuance of a writ of possession. Regardless of a pending suit for annulment, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice to the annulment case's outcome. The proceedings for the writ of possession are ex parte and summary.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, after the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name due to the mortgagor's failure to redeem, is a ministerial function of the court. Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale must be determined in a separate proceeding and cannot be used to oppose the issuance of the writ.