Tolentino v. Shenton Realty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Marylou B. Tolentino obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over her property. Upon default, the bank foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially. Respondent Shenton Realty Corp. emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction and was issued a Certificate of Sale, which was later annotated on the title. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a separate civil case for Judicial Redemption, Equity on Accounting, Damages, and injunctive relief. Subsequently, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied petitioner's motion to intervene, holding that intervention is not proper when there is no pending litigation and that the issuance of a writ of possession under Act 3135 is a ministerial duty upon proper motion and bond, with any dispute on equity to be resolved in a separate action. The RTC subsequently ordered the issuance of the writ of possession. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, alleging that the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession despite a defective ex-parte motion and the lack of a bond as mandated by Act 3135. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the writ, but it appeared the Sheriff had already implemented it before receiving the TRO.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession despite a defective ex-parte motion for issuance of writ of possession and the lack of bond. Whether petitioner's filing of a complaint for judicial redemption without consignation of the redemption price constitutes a valid exercise of her right of redemption.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the trial court's order for the issuance of the writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the writ of possession: The Court reiterated that under Act 3135, as amended, the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court upon the filing of a proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond by the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The rationale is to allow the purchaser to have possession of the foreclosed property without delay, as such possession is founded on their right of ownership. Any question regarding the equity of accounting or the validity of the redemption price is to be determined in a separate action and does not bar the immediate issuance of the writ. The Court also noted that while Virgilio Sintos, Jr. initially failed to show his authority to sign the motion, respondent later submitted a Secretary's Certificate confirming his authorization, constituting substantial compliance in the interest of justice. On judicial redemption without consignation of the redemption price: The Court held that for a valid redemption in extrajudicial foreclosures, the debtor must pay or consign the redemption price within the redemption period. Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended, and Section 28, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure require payment of the purchase price with interest and any assessments or taxes paid by the purchaser. In this case, the certificate of sale was annotated on February 7, 2001, giving petitioner until February 7, 2002, to redeem. Although petitioner filed a complaint for judicial redemption on February 6, 2002, there was no indication that she paid or consigned the redemption price. The Court emphasized that filing an action for judicial redemption without paying or consigning the redemption price does not grant the redemptioner possession of the property. Therefore, respondent, as the highest bidder who bought the property for a substantial amount, is more entitled to possession.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is a ministerial duty of the court upon the filing of the proper motion and bond by the purchaser. Questions regarding the equity of accounting or the validity of the redemption price are to be determined in a separate action, and do not bar the issuance of the writ.