Uy v. 3Tops De Philippines Estate Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent 3Tops De Philippines Estate Corporation (3Tops) filed an Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession under Act No. 3135, as amended, before the RTC of Bacolod City. 3Tops averred it is the registered owner of two parcels of land, evidenced by TCT Nos. 092-2014000935 and 092-2014000936. These properties were previously owned by Lucy S. Uy (Lucy), who mortgaged them to RCBC. RCBC assigned its rights to Star Two, Inc. (Star Two). Upon Lucy's default, Star Two foreclosed the properties extrajudicially. After Lucy failed to redeem, Star Two consolidated ownership in 2013. In 2014, Star Two sold the properties to 3Tops, which then secured new titles. 3Tops claimed to have paid property taxes since its acquisition. Procedural History: The RTC granted 3Tops' Ex Parte Petition and issued a Writ of Possession on April 24, 2018, followed by a Notice to Vacate on May 10, 2018. Petitioner Jacqueline S. Uy, daughter of Lucy and occupant of the properties, filed an Urgent Motion to Admit Opposition, seeking to quash the writ and hold its implementation in abeyance, citing bad faith and forum shopping due to pending cases (Civil Case No. 15-14483 and Civil Case No. 05-12643) involving the properties. Petitioner argued that the trial court's duty to issue the writ ceased to be ministerial due to alleged irregularities in the foreclosure and titling. The RTC denied the Urgent Motion in an Order dated July 17, 2018, and a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on September 17, 2018. The RTC reasoned that issues on the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure are not grounds to refuse a writ of possession, and the ministerial duty only ceases if a third party with an adverse claim is in possession, which it found not to be the case. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the certiorari petition on January 16, 2019, holding that the proper remedy was an appeal under Act No. 3135, and that the issuance of the writ was ministerial. The CA denied reconsideration on July 1, 2019, also noting that the properties had been surrendered, rendering the case moot. The Petition: Petitioner seeks the reversal of the CA's Resolutions, arguing that certiorari was the correct remedy, that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, and that the case was not rendered moot.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner availed of the correct remedy from the trial court's Orders dated July 17, 2018 and September 17, 2018. Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in sustaining its April 24, 2018 Order granting the issuance of Writ of Possession, and in denying petitioner's Urgent Motion and Motion for Reconsideration. Whether the alleged voluntary surrender by petitioner of the subject properties rendered the relief sought moot.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The January 19, 2019 and the July 1, 2019 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 12168, insofar as it dismissed Jacqueline Uy's Petition for Certiorari (With Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) for lack of merit are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the correct remedy: The Court ruled that petitioner availed of the correct remedy. While the CA held that appeal under Act No. 3135 was the proper recourse, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 8 of Act No. 3135, which provides for an appeal, applies only to writs of possession issued during the redemption period. In this case, the writ of possession was issued long after the redemption period expired and ownership was consolidated in the respondent's name. As such, the remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 was unavailable. The Court reiterated its pronouncement in 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. Court of Appeals that after consolidation of ownership, the purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute, and the issuance of the writ becomes ministerial. When the remedy of appeal under Act No. 3135 is unavailable, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper recourse to assail orders denying motions to quash or reconsider such writs, provided there is grave abuse of discretion. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. It reiterated that the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to a writ of possession, and this right becomes absolute after the expiration of the redemption period without redemption. The issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial duty of the court upon proper application and proof of title. The Court emphasized that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession, and the trial court need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of foreclosure. The nature of an ex parte petition for a writ of possession is non-litigious, and no hearing is necessary prior to its issuance. The exception where the ministerial duty ceases is when a third party is in possession under a claim of title adverse to the debtor-mortgagor, which was not the case here as petitioner was acting on behalf of her mother, the debtor-mortgagor. On mootness: The Court agreed with the appellate court that the relief sought by petitioner had been rendered moot by her voluntary surrender of the subject properties to the respondent. Having validly acquired possession, the respondent's right could no longer be disturbed by the cancellation or suspension of the writ. Petitioner's recourse would now be a separate action for annulment of foreclosure or reconveyance, not the cancellation of the writ of possession.
Main Doctrine
The remedy of appeal under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 is available only for writs of possession issued during the redemption period. For writs of possession issued after the expiration of the redemption period and consolidation of ownership, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail orders denying motions to quash or reconsider such writs, as the trial court's duty to issue the writ becomes ministerial and not subject to appeal under Act No. 3135.