DIGEST/ KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/ DONNA NAGTALON vs UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK

 

G.R. No. 172504               July 31, 2013

DONNA C. NAGTALON, Petitioner,

vs.

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.

FACTS

Roman Nagtalon and the petitioner entered into a credit accommodation agreement with respondent. Spouses Nagtalon, executed deeds of real estate mortgage over several properties in Kalibo, Aklan. After the they failed to abide and comply with the terms and conditions Officio Provincial Sheriff a verified petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage.

The mortgaged properties were consequently foreclosed and sold at public auction to the respondent which emerged as the sole and highest bidder. After the issuance of the sheriff’s certificate of sale, the respondent caused the entry of the sale in the records of the Registry of Deeds of Kalibo, Aklan and its annotation on the TCTs. With the lapse of the 1yr redemption period and the petitioner’s failure to exercise her right to redeem the foreclosed properties, the respondent consolidated the ownership over the properties, resulting in the cancellation of the titles in the name of the petitioner and the issuance of TCTs in the name of the respondent.

 Then, respondent filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the RTC. But it ruled that due to the pendency of the case, the obligation of the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure of mortgage property ceases to be ministerial. CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders, noting that while it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession after the lapse of the one-year period of redemption, the rule admits of exceptions and the present case at bar was not one of them.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of a civil case challenging the validity of the credit agreement, the promissory notes and the mortgage can bar the issuance of a writ of possession after the foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged properties and the lapse of the one-year redemption period.

RULING

No. The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function of the court.  Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial function of the court, which cannot be enjoined or restrained, even by the filing of a civil case for the declaration of nullity of the foreclosure and consequent auction sale.

The court had long recognized the rule that once title to the property has been consolidated in the buyer’s name upon failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right belonging to the buyer. Consequently, the buyer can demand possession of the property at any time. Its right to possession has then ripened into the right of a confirmed absolute owner and the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial function that does not admit of the exercise of the court’s discretion. The court, acting on an application for its issuance, should issue the writ as a matter of course and without any delay.

CA correctly ruled that the present case does not present peculiar circumstances that would merit an exception from the well-entrenched rule on the issuance of the writ.