Mallari v. Banco Filipino
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Eligio P. Mallari, obtained a loan from respondent Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, securing it with a mortgage on a parcel of land. Upon petitioner's failure to repay the loan, the respondent bank extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged property. The respondent bank emerged as the highest bidder at the auction sale, and its certificate of sale was annotated on the property's title on May 20, 1999. The petitioner failed to redeem the property within the redemption period, which expired on May 20, 2000, leading to the consolidation of the respondent's title and the cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of title on August 30, 2000. 2. Procedural History: Following the consolidation of title, the respondent bank filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on January 18, 2001. The petitioner opposed this petition, citing a pending action for the declaration of nullity of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Despite the opposition, the RTC granted the writ of possession on May 18, 2001, and subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition on March 14, 2003, ruling that an appeal was the proper remedy and that certiorari was unavailable. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He contends that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's grant of the writ of possession and in ruling that certiorari was not the appropriate remedy, arguing that appeal was not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The petitioner raises three main issues: (1) the CA's error in upholding the grant of the writ of possession; (2) the CA's error in upholding the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the order for the implementation of the writ; and (3) the CA's error in ruling that certiorari would not lie as appeal was still available.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a petition for certiorari would not lie against the RTC orders granting the writ of possession. Whether the RTC erred in granting the writ of possession despite the pendency of an action for the declaration of nullity of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals committed no error in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the propriety of the remedy of certiorari: The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that a petition for certiorari is available only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. While exceptions exist, such as when public welfare or the broader interest of justice dictates, these were found to be absent in the present case. The Court emphasized that Section 8 of Act No. 3135 provides a specific procedure for a debtor to challenge a foreclosure sale and the issuance of a writ of possession, which includes the right to appeal from the order denying or granting the petition to set aside the sale. This procedure is considered the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Therefore, since the petitioner could have availed himself of this remedy, certiorari was not the proper recourse, and the CA correctly dismissed the petition on this ground. On the issue of the propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession: The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name due to the mortgagor's failure to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right, and the trial court has no discretion in its issuance. The Court clarified that any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure is not a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession. Furthermore, the posting of a bond is not necessary after the one-year redemption period has expired and ownership has been consolidated in the purchaser's name. The Court concluded that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession, as it was a ministerial duty performed within its jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial function that cannot be refused by the court, and the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by the order granting the writ is to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ, not a petition for certiorari.