Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Tarampi
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In 1995, spouses Homobono and Luzdeldia Tarampi obtained loans totaling P19,000,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. The respondents defaulted on their loan obligations, leading BPI to initiate extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The mortgaged property was sold at auction on February 8, 1999, with BPI emerging as the highest bidder. Following the expiration of the redemption period without redemption by the respondents, BPI executed an Affidavit of Consolidation, resulting in the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in BPI's name on July 27, 2000. 2. Procedural History: BPI subsequently filed an ex parte Petition for a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105. The RTC initially granted the petition but later suspended the writ's implementation due to a pending action for annulment of the real estate mortgages before Branch 220. Upon BPI's motion for reconsideration, Branch 105 recalled its suspension order and set the respondents' opposition for hearing, treating it as a petition under Section 8 of Act No. 3135. The court then granted BPI's motion for immediate implementation of the writ of possession. The respondents filed a Notice of Appeal from this order. Branch 220, to which the opposition was referred for consolidation, gave due course to the respondents' appeal. After BPI's motion for reconsideration was denied, it filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Concurrently, the Court of Appeals, to which the respondents had appealed the order granting the writ's implementation, dismissed their appeal. 3. The Petition: BPI filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to overturn the order of Branch 220 which gave due course to the respondents' Notice of Appeal. BPI argues that proceedings for a writ of possession are ex parte and that the order granting such a writ is interlocutory and thus not appealable. BPI further contends that as the registered owner, its right to possession is unquestionable. The core issues presented are whether Branch 220 erred in giving due course to the respondents' appeal and whether the writ of possession should be implemented during the pendency of the annulment case. BPI maintains that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court once ownership has been consolidated in the buyer's name and a new title has been issued, citing relevant jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether Branch 220 erred in giving due course to respondents’ Notice of Appeal from Branch 105’s Order granting petitioner’s motion for immediate implementation of the writ of possession. Whether the writ of possession should be implemented during the pendency of the case for annulment of mortgages.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Branch 105 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is directed to immediately proceed with the implementation of the Writ of Possession in favor of petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Branch 220 giving due course to the appeal: The Court held that Branch 220 did not err in giving due course to respondents' Notice of Appeal. Citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tan, the Court reiterated that an order granting a writ of possession is final, and the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. The Court emphasized that as long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, alleged errors in the exercise of discretion are mere errors of judgment correctable by appeal. In this case, respondents raised factual and legal issues, making an appeal the appropriate recourse. Therefore, Branch 220 correctly gave due course to the appeal. On the issue of implementing the writ of possession during the pendency of the annulment case: The Court ruled that the writ of possession should be implemented immediately. It is settled jurisprudence that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner upon failure of the debtor to redeem the property within the redemption period. As absolute owner, the buyer is entitled to possession and can demand it anytime after consolidation of ownership and issuance of a new title. The issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court, requiring no further exercise of discretion. The law, specifically Act No. 3135, provides that the debtor may petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and any appeal from the court's decision on this petition shall not stay the order of possession. The Court stressed that the purpose of the writ is to allow the purchaser to have possession without delay, founded on the right of ownership. To allow injunctions or stay orders based on pending annulment cases would render the writ a useless paper judgment, contrary to the mandate of Act No. 3135. Therefore, until the foreclosure sale is annulled by a competent court, the issuance and implementation of the writ of possession remain a ministerial duty.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the buyer in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, after the consolidation of title in the buyer's name and the issuance of a new title, is a ministerial duty of the court. Any question regarding the validity of the mortgages or the foreclosure proceedings cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance or implementation of the writ of possession.