Maliwat v. Metropolitan Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Jeanette and Rufino Maliwat obtained a loan of P23,850,000.00 from Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, secured by three real estate mortgages on their property in Valenzuela City. The petitioners failed to repay the loan, leading the respondent bank to initiate extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings. The property was sold at public auction on October 14, 1999, with the bank as the highest bidder, and a Certificate of Sale was subsequently issued. Procedural History: Following the auction sale, the respondent bank filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, Valenzuela City, which was granted. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a separate complaint with the RTC, Branch 172, seeking the annulment of the mortgages, foreclosure proceedings, and auction sale. This case was consolidated with the writ of possession case. The RTC, Branch 75, later issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the writ of possession, which was affirmed by an order denying the bank's motion for reconsideration. The respondent bank then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the trial court's orders and lifting the writ of preliminary injunction. The Petition: The petitioners, Spouses Jeanette and Rufino Maliwat, are seeking a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals. They contend that the appellate court erred in finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession. The core issue presented is whether the issuance of a writ of possession, particularly in cases of extra-judicial foreclosure, can be enjoined by a preliminary injunction issued by the same court.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of a writ of possession by the trial court may be enjoined by a writ of preliminary injunction also issued by the same court; and whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in enjoining the enforcement of the writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals (Fourteenth Division) dated March 22, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 77344 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of enjoining a writ of possession: Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, the purchaser at an extra-judicial foreclosure sale may petition the court for possession, and the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. The law leaves no discretion to the court in this regard. Any questions concerning the regularity and validity of the sale are to be determined in a subsequent proceeding and cannot be raised to oppose the issuance of the writ of possession. The purchaser is entitled to possession as a matter of right, even during the redemption period, provided an indemnity bond is filed. After the redemption period lapses without redemption, this right becomes absolute. Therefore, an injunction to prohibit the issuance of a writ of possession is "utterly out of place." Once the writ of possession has been issued, the court is bound to enforce it without delay. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in enjoining the implementation of the writ of possession issued in favor of the respondent.
Main Doctrine
An injunction to prohibit the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is utterly out of place, and once the writ has been issued, the court has no alternative but to enforce it without delay.