Motos v. Real Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Gloria and Martin Motos obtained loans totaling P4,000,000 from Real Bank (A Thrift Bank), Inc., securing the obligation with a mortgage on their property. Upon failure to pay, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, with the bank emerging as the highest bidder. After the redemption period expired, the bank consolidated title and obtained a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in its name. 2. Procedural History: The bank filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222, which was granted. The spouses Motos refused to vacate and filed a motion to quash the writ, which the RTC denied. The RTC subsequently denied their notice of appeal and motion for reconsideration. The spouses then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's grant of the writ of possession but set aside the orders denying their appeal, directing the RTC to give due course to the appeal. Both parties sought reconsideration, which was denied. 3. The Petition: The spouses Motos filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning whether a writ of possession issued by the RTC could be enforced pending an appeal. They argued that the trial court's grant of the writ was void for lack of notice. The Supreme Court treated the petition as one for review on certiorari, holding that the issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial duty of the court and is an ex parte proceeding. The Court further clarified that any challenge to the validity of the sale should be raised in a separate proceeding under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, and that the order of possession remains effective during the pendency of any appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of possession may be issued ex parte. Whether an order denying a motion to quash a writ of possession is appealable. Whether the writ of possession issued by the RTC can be enforced pending appeal which was given due course.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification, and reinstated the Orders of the Regional Trial Court dated May 5, 2004, and June 22, 2004. Costs were against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a writ of possession may be issued ex parte: The Court reiterated that a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is in the nature of an ex parte motion. It is a non-litigious proceeding authorized under the law, taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party without the need for notice to or consent by any party who might be adversely affected. During the period of redemption, it is ministerial upon the court to issue the writ upon proper motion, bond approval, and absence of third-party intervention. After the expiration of the redemption period, the purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute, and a mere ex parte motion suffices, with a bond no longer necessary as possession becomes the absolute right of the purchaser as the confirmed owner. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession ex parte. On the issue of whether an order denying a motion to quash a writ of possession is appealable: The Court clarified that the proper remedy for the mortgagor is to file a petition to set aside the sale and writ of possession under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, not a motion to quash. A motion to quash is not the remedy contemplated by law for questioning the validity of the sale. Consequently, an order denying such a motion is interlocutory, as it does not dispose of the case completely and leaves something to be decided. Under Section 1(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. Thus, the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering the RTC to give due course to the petitioners' appeal from the denial of their motion to quash. On the issue of whether the writ of possession issued by the RTC can be enforced pending appeal which was given due course: The Court noted that the appeal the Court of Appeals directed the RTC to give due course to was from the denial of an interlocutory order, which is unappealable. However, even assuming that an appeal from a judgment upholding the sale and issuance of the writ of possession was properly taken, Section 8 of Act No. 3135 explicitly states that 'the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal.' This provision ensures that the purchaser's right to possession is maintained while any challenge to the sale is being resolved.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to quash a writ of possession, which is filed after the denial of a petition to set aside the sale and writ of possession, is interlocutory and therefore unappealable. However, even if an appeal were properly taken from a judgment upholding the sale and writ of possession, the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal, as provided by Section 8 of Act No. 3135.