Marquez v. Alindog
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Nicasio and Anita Marquez (Sps. Marquez) extended a loan to Benjamin Gutierrez, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land. Gutierrez defaulted, and Anita Marquez emerged as the highest bidder in the extra-judicial foreclosure sale. Title consolidated under Anita Marquez's name, but it bore an annotation of an adverse claim by Spouses Carlito and Carmen Alindog (Sps. Alindog). Sps. Alindog alleged they purchased the property from Gutierrez in 1989, but were deceived by a third party regarding the title processing. They also claimed Gutierrez was already dead when the mortgage to Sps. Marquez was executed. Procedural History: Anita Marquez filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession, which the RTC granted. A notice to vacate was issued. Sps. Alindog filed a separate case for injunctive relief, seeking to restrain the implementation of the writ of possession. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Sps. Marquez from taking possession, finding that Sps. Alindog appeared to have a right to be protected. Sps. Marquez moved for reconsideration, arguing their right to possession as registered owners and that the injunction was moot as the writ of possession had already been implemented. The RTC denied their motion and granted Sps. Alindog's motion to regain possession. Sps. Marquez elevated the case to the CA. The Petition: The Court of Appeals denied Sps. Marquez's petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the injunctive writ. Sps. Marquez filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property. Whether the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Decision dated February 29, 2008 and Resolution dated August 6, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97744, as well as the Orders dated November 14, 2005 and January 17, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18 in SCA No. TG-05-2521 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary injunction in SCA No. TG-05-2521 is NULLIFIED, while the Writ of Possession in LRC Case No. TG-05-1068 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial act and a matter of right once title has consolidated in the buyer's name. The RTC gravely abused its discretion when it effectively rescinded the writ of possession by granting Sps. Alindog's prayer for injunctive relief. The RTC's finding based on initial evidence adduced by Sps. Alindog was an improper basis for issuing the injunction, as the court had no authority to exercise discretion in this regard. Furthermore, the act sought to be enjoined, the implementation of the writ of possession, had already been accomplished, rendering the injunction petition moot and academic. An injunction will not lie if the act sought to be enjoined has already become a fait accompli. On the issue of whether the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court: The Court reiterated the established rule that the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property and can demand to be placed in possession thereof. This entitlement is recognized under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. The Court clarified that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty, meaning the court must issue it as a matter of course upon compliance with the requirements, without exercising its own judgment on the propriety of the act. This is supported by jurisprudence, which holds that any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding, not as a basis for opposing the issuance of the writ of possession. The exception to this ministerial duty arises only when a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right, which must be superior to that of the mortgagor. In this case, Sps. Alindog's claim was derived from Sps. Gutierrez, the original mortgagor, and thus they were merely successors-in-interest without a superior right.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court, which admits of no discretion, unless a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right superior to that of the mortgagor.