Baldueza v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cecilia S. Baldueza (Petitioner) mortgaged a 212 sq. m. parcel of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan, to Prudential Bank (Respondent Bank) to secure a loan of P380,000. Upon Baldueza's failure to pay the loan at maturity, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the property on December 12, 1995, under Act No. 3135. The bank emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction. Procedural History: On the same day as the foreclosure, Baldueza filed a complaint for declaration of nullity and cancellation of contract (Civil Case No. 818-M-95). The one-year redemption period expired on December 12, 1996, without redemption. Consequently, the bank consolidated ownership, and TCT No. T-297416 (M) was issued in its name. On August 8, 2001, the bank filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession (LRC Case No. P-389-2001). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the writ on November 15, 2001, ruling that the issuance was a ministerial duty. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Baldueza's petition for certiorari, sustaining the RTC's order. The Petition: Baldueza filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the bank acted in bad faith by omitting a notice of lis pendens on the new title and failing to disclose the pending annulment case. She contended that the bank's alleged bad faith should disqualify it from the ex-parte issuance of the writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of respondent bank despite the pending suit for annulment of mortgage and allegations of bad faith.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court once the redemption period has expired and ownership has been consolidated. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner if the property is not redeemed within one year. Citing Vda. de Zaballero v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that possession becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as the confirmed owner. The Court further clarified that a pending suit for the annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession. Applying Jetri Construction Corporation v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, the bank is entitled to the writ without prejudice to the eventual outcome of the annulment case. Finally, the Court rejected the allegations of bad faith, noting that these are factual matters already resolved by the lower courts, and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Main Doctrine
The buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court, which is not affected by a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage.