Batolinio v. Yap-Rosas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Philippine Savings Bank (private respondent) granted a loan to Nicefora Miñoza, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land. Miñoza failed to pay, leading to extrajudicial foreclosure and public auction where private respondent emerged as the highest bidder. After the registration of the certificate of sale and the expiration of the redemption period, private respondent obtained a consolidated title. Private respondent demanded Miñoza and others to vacate the property. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted private respondent's ex parte petition for a writ of possession. Spouses Salvador and Amor Batolinio (petitioners) filed an Omnibus Motion, claiming ownership of the property, alleging they sold it to Miñoza under certain conditions, and that their signatures were forged. They asserted they were third parties with adverse claims and that private respondent lacked due diligence. The RTC denied their motion, stating its decision on the writ of possession had become final and executory and that the pendency of their civil case would not bar the issuance of the writ. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed their petition for certiorari, holding that petitioners, having sold the property through an absolute sale, had no more right and could not be considered third parties with adverse claims. The CA also ruled that allegations of private respondent not being a mortgagee or buyer in good faith were not grounds to suspend the writ, as its issuance was ministerial until the foreclosure sale was annulled. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners sought review of the CA's decision, raising issues regarding their status as third parties with adverse claims, the CA's ruling on factual issues not raised on appeal, the effect of private respondent's alleged status as a mortgagee/buyer in good faith, and the impartiality of the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioners are not third parties holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor because they had already parted with their ownership. Whether the CA erred in ruling on a factual issue not raised on appeal and yet to be determined by a competent lower court. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the issue of private respondent being a mortgagee or buyer in good faith does not warrant the suspension of the writ of possession. Whether the RTC was impartial in adjudicating the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court after the expiration of the redemption period in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, unless a third party is in actual possession adversely to the judgment debtor. The Court found that petitioners, having sold the property through a deed of absolute sale, relinquished their title and could no longer be considered third parties with adverse interests. Their claims regarding the validity of the sale and private respondent's good faith are matters to be resolved in a separate civil action, not in a proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of petitioners being third parties with adverse claims: The Court reiterated that a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court after the expiration of the redemption period in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, except when a third party is in actual possession of the property adversely to the judgment debtor. Petitioners' contention that they were third parties holding the property adversely was found untenable. Firstly, they sold the subject property to Miñoza through a deed of absolute sale, thereby relinquishing their title and no longer possessing any right over it. Secondly, the sale was absolute, with no reservation of ownership, which meant they parted with their ownership. Therefore, they could not be considered third parties with an adverse interest from the judgment debtor, Miñoza. The Court emphasized that the sale of real property is an effective mode of transferring ownership, leaving petitioners without an independent right over the subject property. On the issue of the CA ruling on factual matters not raised on appeal: The Court found that the CA's determination that petitioners had sold the property through an absolute sale was a necessary consequence of the facts presented and their own admissions, and not an extraneous factual finding. Petitioners themselves admitted to having decided to sell the property to Miñoza and confirmed executing a letter of guaranty for Miñoza's loan from private respondent, acknowledging their awareness of the transaction. The CA's ruling was based on the established fact of the absolute sale, which directly refuted petitioners' claim of being third parties with adverse interests. Therefore, the CA did not err in considering this aspect as it was intrinsically linked to the core issue of whether petitioners were entitled to be heard in the ex parte proceeding for the writ of possession. On the issue of private respondent's status as mortgagee/buyer in good faith: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that allegations regarding private respondent not being a mortgagee or buyer in good faith do not warrant the suspension of the writ of possession. The Court clarified that questions on the validity of the mortgage, its foreclosure, or the sale are not grounds for denying the issuance of a writ of possession. Such issues must be ventilated in a separate and independent action, such as an annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale. The issuance of a writ of possession is a summary proceeding and a mere incident in the transfer of title, and it does not preclude any purported adverse party from filing a case to annul the mortgage or foreclosure. The trial court issuing the writ does not need to delve into the validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure process. On the issue of RTC impartiality: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the writ of possession. The RTC acted within its ministerial duty to issue the writ upon the ex parte application of the private respondent, who was the purchaser in the foreclosure sale and to whom title had been issued. The pendency of the civil case filed by petitioners did not bar the issuance of the writ. The CA correctly found that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion, and thus, there was no reason for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the trial court. The right of private respondent to possession was fully established, and its right over the property was absolute.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession after the expiration of the redemption period in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court, except when a third party is in actual possession of the property adversely to the judgment debtor. A party who has sold the property through a deed of absolute sale can no longer claim to be a third party with an adverse interest.