GR 86237; (December, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86237 December 17, 1991
JORGE NAVARRA and CARMELITA BERNARDO NAVARRA and THE RRRC DEVELOPMENT CORP., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Planters Development Bank to secure a loan. Upon default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. After a public auction and the expiration of the one-year redemption period without redemption by the petitioners, new certificates of title were issued in the bank’s name. The bank then filed a petition for a writ of possession in the Regional Trial Court (LRC Case No. M-1201).
The petitioners opposed the writ, alleging they had become owners of the properties by virtue of a perfected and partially consummated contract of sale with the bank, a claim which was the subject of a separate pending civil case for specific performance (Civil Case No. 16917). Despite being given the opportunity to present evidence in the possession proceedings, the petitioners opted not to and instead filed a written manifestation arguing the petition was filed out of time. The trial court granted the writ of possession.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession despite the petitioners’ claim of ownership arising from an alleged contract of sale, which was pending litigation in a separate case.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held the issuance of the writ was proper. The right to a writ of possession is ministerial upon the court once the redemption period expires without the mortgagor exercising the right of redemption. This proceeding under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 , as amended, is ex parte. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale is entitled to possession as a matter of right, and the issuance is a mere ministerial function.
The petitioners’ claim of ownership, based on an alleged separate contract of sale, is not a legal ground to oppose the issuance of the writ in the summary possession proceeding. Such a claim involving the validity of the sale or ownership is a litigious matter that must be raised and threshed out in the separate ordinary civil action (Civil Case No. 16917) they had initiated. The pendency of that case does not bar the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ of possession in favor of the confirmed purchaser after the redemption period. The two remedies are distinct and proceed independently of each other.