HH & Co. Agricultural Corporation v. Perlas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: HH & CO. Agricultural Corporation (petitioner) instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure on a real estate mortgage covering Lot No. 3. Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in the public auction sale, and a certificate of sale was issued in its favor. Petitioner asserted that the redemption period was until December 15, 2001, but admitted that the finalities for consolidation of title were not executed due to a preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a separate case for nullity of mortgage involving the same property. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an Application for Writ of Possession, which the RTC granted. Subsequently, Adriano Perlas (respondent), an heir of the mortgagor, filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Possession, arguing that he and his siblings had filed cases for annulment of sale and nullity of mortgage over the subject property, which were still pending. The RTC recalled and set aside the writ of possession, consolidating the case with the nullity of mortgage case, citing the existing preliminary injunction that prevented petitioner from consolidating title. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioner's petition for certiorari, ruling that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion as petitioner failed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a writ of possession to be a ministerial duty, especially in light of the prior preliminary injunction. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals properly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its Order granting petitioner's application for issuance of writ of possession, considering the finality of the order and the ministerial duty to enforce it. Whether the RTC's Order granting the issuance of a writ of possession had already become final and executory, rendering the motion to quash improper, and the effect of a preliminary injunction on the ministerial duty to issue the writ.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 3, 2014 and Resolution dated January 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 05568 are SET ASIDE. The Order dated March 16, 2009 and the Writ of Possession dated May 6, 2009 of Branch 60, Regional Trial Court, Cadiz City are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of recalling the writ of possession and the ministerial duty to issue it: The Supreme Court held that the RTC committed reversible error in recalling the writ of possession. The Court emphasized the doctrine of immutability of judgment, stating that a final and executory judgment cannot be disturbed or modified by any court, even to rectify perceived errors. The RTC's Order dated March 16, 2009, granting the writ of possession, had already become final and executory, with a corresponding entry of judgment issued on April 27, 2009. The Court found no applicable exceptions to the immutability rule in this case. Therefore, the RTC had a ministerial duty to enforce the judgment, and recalling the writ was improper. The Court reiterated that a buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property if no redemption is made within the statutory period. As absolute owner, the buyer is entitled to all rights of ownership, including possession. The duty of the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the successful buyer is ministerial and cannot be stayed by a pending action for annulment of the mortgage or foreclosure, except when a third party is in actual possession under an adverse title or right. In this case, the respondent, as an heir of the mortgagor, is not considered a third party with an adverse title or right. On the effect of the preliminary injunction and the finality of the order: While the RTC had issued a preliminary injunction in a separate case enjoining the consolidation of title, the Supreme Court clarified that the issue in the present petition was solely about the propriety of recalling the writ of possession, not the consolidation itself or the validity of the injunction. The Court stressed that the writ of possession is a writ of execution to enforce a judgment for recovery of possession, and its issuance is generally ministerial. The existence of a preliminary injunction in a separate case does not automatically negate the ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession, especially when the judgment for possession has already become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The duty of the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of a successful buyer in a foreclosure sale is ministerial, and this duty cannot be stayed by a pending action for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself, unless a third party is in actual possession under an adverse title or right. Furthermore, a writ of possession that has become final and executory cannot be recalled or set aside except on grounds provided by law, such as clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, or circumstances rendering execution unjust and inequitable after finality.