GR 171169; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171169 ; August 24, 2009
GC DALTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Equitable PCI Bank extended a credit line to Camden Industries, Inc. (CII), secured by a third-party real estate mortgage executed by petitioner GC Dalton Industries, Inc. over its properties. Upon CII’s default, respondent extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged Bulacan properties, purchased them at auction, and consolidated ownership after the redemption period. Respondent then filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession in the Bulacan RTC.
Meanwhile, CII filed a separate action in the Pasig RTC for specific performance and damages, claiming full payment of its obligation and alleging fraudulent foreclosure. The Pasig RTC ruled in favor of CII, ordering respondent to return the titles to petitioner, among other reliefs. Respondent’s appeal was initially dismissed for non-payment of fees, leading the Pasig RTC to order the execution of its decision. Petitioner opposed the writ of possession in Bulacan RTC, citing the Pasig RTC decision and alleging fraud and forum-shopping by respondent. The Bulacan RTC granted the writ. Petitioner’s certiorari petition to the CA was dismissed, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Bulacan RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession despite the conflicting decision from the Pasig RTC.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the ministerial duty to issue the writ. The legal logic is that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is a summary and ministerial act following the consolidation of title; it is not a judgment on the merits requiring extensive factual and legal bases under the Constitution. The trial court exercises no discretion once the foreclosure sale is confirmed and the redemption period expires. The conflicting Pasig RTC decision does not bar this ministerial duty, as the proper remedy for the mortgagor is a separate judicial action to annul the mortgage or foreclosure, not an opposition to the writ. The pendency of such an action does not suspend the issuance of the writ, which proceeds independently to place the purchaser in possession. Therefore, the Bulacan RTC correctly issued the writ, and the CA properly dismissed the challenge.