G.R. No. L-62219 February 28, 1989
SPOUSES TEOFISTO VERCELES AND EULALIA VERCELES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (BRANCH XV-PASIG), BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK AND THE SHERIFF OF RIZAL &/OR DEPUTY SHERIFF RENATO C. FLORA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners obtained a loan from respondent Banco de Oro, secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon their default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. After due publication and notice, the property was sold at public auction to the bank as the sole bidder. The sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered. Petitioners failed to redeem the property within the one-year period. Consequently, the bank consolidated its ownership, and the Register of Deeds issued a new title in its name. The bank then filed a petition for a writ of possession, which the trial court granted. Petitioners later filed a petition to set aside the certificate of sale and the writ, which was denied. They then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the auction sale was invalid due to the alleged lack of a duly authorized representative for the bank during the sale, and (2) whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession without requiring the bank to post a bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the Court found the bank was duly represented at the auction by its assistant vice president, who was also its legal counsel and secretary. The Court held that under the circumstances, this official did not need to present a special power of attorney, and his authority was subsequently confirmed by the bank’s acts of registering the certificate of sale and consolidating ownership. On the second issue, the Court ruled that no bond was required for the issuance of the writ of possession. The one-year redemption period is reckoned from the date of registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale, not from the registration of the final deed of sale executed later by the attorney-in-fact. Since the writ was applied for after the expiration of the redemption period and after the bank had consolidated its ownership, the issuance of the writ was a ministerial duty of the court. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale who has consolidated ownership has a clear right to possession. Petitioners’ ancillary argument—that the redemption period was not yet over because the bank failed to submit a statement of taxes paid—was also rejected. The Court found no stipulation or law stating that such a failure interrupts the running of the redemption period. The petition was devoid of merit.