SPOUSES Oliveros and Cabuyao Commercial Center Vs Presiding Judge of RTC Laguna and Metropolitan Bank GR 165963
SPOUSES Oliveros and Cabuyao Commercial Center Vs Presiding Judge of RTC Laguna and Metropolitan Bank GR 165963
To secure the loans, spouses Norberto and CA dismissed petitioners petition. The Court of Appeals concluded that the
Elvira Oliveros and Florencia Nevalga executed a Deed of Real Estate grant of the writ of possession is a ministerial function. Considering
Mortgage dated 30 April 1997 in favor of Metrobank over three parcels of land that Metrobank already acquired titles to the subject properties, its
together with all the buildings and improvements existing thereon located in Sta. right to possess said properties as an owner became absolute. Until a
Rosa, Laguna, all registered in the name of Elvira B. Nevalga and issued by the court of competent jurisdiction annuls the foreclosure sale, petitioners are
Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna (subject properties). bereft of any valid title and right to prevent the issuance of a writ of
possession.
For failure of the mortgagors to pay their loan, Metrobank instituted extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings over their Real Estate Mortgage under Act No. 3135 and ISSUE: WON Metrobank acquired right to possess and right of ownership
caused the subject properties to be sold at a public auction held on 14 January
2000 for the sum of P5,500,160.00. Metrobank emerged as the highest bidder at the HELD: Yes. Because the mortgagor(Sps Oliveros) failed to redeem the
auction sale. The corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in favor foreclosed property within one year, therefore, the purchaser(Metrobank)
of Metrobank. The mortgagors failed to redeem the subject properties becomes the absolute owner of the property.
from Metrobank within the one-year period from the date of the registration of
the Certificate of Sale; Metrobank purchased the properties at a public auction following the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the subject properties. Certificates of sale over the properties were
Metrobank demanded that the mortgagors turn over actual possession of the subject issued in favor of Metrobank and registered with the Registry of Deeds. Petitioners
properties, but the mortgagors failed and refused to do so. This as mortgagors failed to redeem the properties within the one-year period of
prompted Metrobank to file an Ex Parte Petition for the issuance of a writ of redemption from the registration of the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale thereof with the
possession in (RTC) Registry of Deeds; hence, Metrobank consolidated its ownership over the subject
properties.
The spouses Oliveros and Cabuyao Commercial Center, petitioners, filed with the
RTC an Opposition to the Petition for issuance of writ of possession filed Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended, provides:
by Metrobank. Petitioners claimed that on 19 February 2001, they filed before the
RTC of Bian, Laguna, a complaint against Metrobank for nullification of foreclosure Sec. 6. Redemption. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is
proceedings with damages. made under the special power herein before referred to, the
debtor, his successors-in-interest or any judicial creditor or
the RTC issued another Order in which it held: judgment creditor of said debtor or any person having a lien on the
property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which
It appears from the record that the petition filed by the petitioner the property is sold, may redeem the same at anytime within
for the Issuance of Writ of Possession. It is clear in several the term of one year from and after the date of the sale; and
Decisions of the Supreme Court that Issuance of Writ of such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of section
Possession is not a judgment on the merits and the Issuance four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive,
of Writ of Possession in Extra-Judicial Foreclosure is merely of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not
a ministerial function. Being ex parte there is no discretion left inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
to the Court. It is stated in said case that upon filing of said motion
and approval of the bond it simply directs the Court to issue the
Order of Writ of Possession and no discretion is left to the
Under the said provision, the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest may redeem the property at the foreclosure sale can proceed to have the title consolidated
foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register in his name and a writ of possession issued in his favor.
of Deeds.
Regardless of whether or not there is a pending action for
After the one-year redemption period, the mortgagor loses all interest over the nullification of the sale at public auction, or of the foreclosure itself,
foreclosed property. The purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends or even for the nullification of the real estate mortgage, the
after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the purchaser at the public auction is entitled to a writ of possession
property when no redemption is made. In such a situation, the bond required without prejudice to the outcome of the action filed by the
under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is no longer needed. petitioners.
The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of
TCT. merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 August 2004 and
Resolution dated 5 November 2004 are AFFIRMED.
After the consolidation of title in the purchasers name for failure of the mortgagor to
redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its
issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a
ministerial function. As such, the court cannot exercise its discretion.
The law does not require that a petition for a writ of possession may be granted only
after documentary and testimonial evidence shall have been offered to and admitted
by the court. As long as a verified petition states the facts sufficient to entitle the
petitioner to the relief requested, the court shall issue the writ prayed for. The
petitioner need not offer any documentary or testimonial evidence for the court to
grant the petition.