Sarrosa v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Edmundo and Lourdes Sarrosa obtained a loan of P2,000,000.00 from Willy Dizon, secured by a real estate mortgage. The loan became due and demandable on June 30, 2001, and the petitioners failed to pay. Following a demand letter and continued non-payment, the respondent initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Procedural History: The respondent filed a Petition to Sell in Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a civil case for Breach of Contract, Damages, Detailed Accounting, with TRO/Injunction. The mortgaged property was sold at public auction to the respondent, who became the highest bidder. After the redemption period expired without redemption, ownership was consolidated in the respondent's name, and a new title was issued. The respondent then filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the writ of possession. The petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition. This led to the current petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. They argue that the Court of Appeals committed serious errors of law in dismissing their petition for certiorari on the technical ground of failing to state material dates and for lack of merit. Specifically, they contend that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari for failing to state the date of receipt of the RTC Order dated June 29, 2007, and in finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion to consolidate cases and in issuing the writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the technical ground of failure to state material dates. Whether the RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the consolidation of the writ of possession case with the civil case. Whether the RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of possession in favor of the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated March 27, 2008, and its Resolution dated May 20, 2008, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari due to failure to state material dates: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, holding that petitioners' failure to state the date of receipt of the RTC Order dated June 29, 2007, prevented the CA from determining if the petition was filed within the reglementary period. This is a strict requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for petitions for certiorari. As certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, strict observance of procedural rules is mandated. The Court emphasized that the failure to comply with such requirements is a sufficient ground for dismissal, as it hinders the court's ability to ascertain timeliness. Therefore, the CA's action was justified based on this procedural defect. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion in denying consolidation: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying the consolidation of the Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession (LRC Case No. 05-0047) with the civil case for Breach of Contract, Damages, and Accounting (Civil Case No. 02-0335). Consolidation is a matter of discretion and is generally allowed when cases involve similar questions of fact and law. However, the Court agreed with the CA that no such similarities existed between the two cases. The nature of a petition for a writ of possession, which is largely ministerial after consolidation of title, is distinct from a civil case seeking damages and accounting. Thus, the RTC was not compelled to consolidate them. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession: The Supreme Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession. The Court reiterated the established principle that the right of a purchaser to the possession of a foreclosed property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption period and the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name. In such instances, the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court. Since the petitioners failed to redeem the property, and ownership was consolidated in the respondent's name, the RTC was bound to issue the writ of possession upon proper application and proof of title. The Court found that the RTC correctly performed its ministerial duty.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial duty of the court once ownership has been consolidated in the purchaser's name after the expiration of the redemption period, and failure to state material dates in a petition for certiorari is a ground for dismissal.