SPOUSES Oliveros and Cabuyao Commercial Center vs Presiding Judge of RTC Court.
Court.Any question regarding the validity and formality of the said
Laguna and Metropolitan Bank GR 165963, sept 3, 2007
Sps Norberto and Elvira Oliveros; Benito, Florencia, Rene, and Danilo, all
surnamed Nevalga; Cresencia N. Faylona and Felina Ong-
Iko and Cabuyao Commercial Center, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
mortgagors) obtained two loans for the construction of the Cabuyao Commercial
Complex in the total principal amount of P58,000,000.00 as evidenced by
promissory notes from Metrobank.
To secure the loans, spouses Norberto and
Elvira Oliveros and Florencia Nevalga executed a Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage dated 30 April 1997 in favor of Metrobank over three parcels of land
together with all the buildings and improvements existing thereon located in Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, all registered in the name of Elvira B. Nevalga and issued by the
Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna (subject properties).
For failure of the mortgagors to pay their loan, Metrobank instituted extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings over their Real Estate Mortgage under Act No. 3135 and
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
auction sale. The corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in favor
of Metrobank. The mortgagors failed to redeem the subject properties
from Metrobank within the one-year period from the date of the registration of
the Certificate of Sale;
Metrobank demanded that the mortgagors turn over actual possession of the subject
properties, but the mortgagors failed and refused to do so. This
prompted Metrobank to file an Ex Parte Petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession in (RTC)
The spouses Oliveros and Cabuyao Commercial Center, petitioners, filed with the
RTC an Opposition to the Petition for issuance of writ of possession filed
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
proceedings with damages.
the RTC issued another Order in which it held:
It appears from the record that the petition filed by the petitioner
for the Issuance of Writ of Possession. It is clear in several
Decisions of the Supreme Court that Issuance of Writ of
Possession is not a judgment on the merits and the Issuance
of Writ of Possession in Extra-Judicial Foreclosure is merely
a ministerial function. Being ex parte there is no discretion left
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
subsequent resolution of the writ is left to be determined in the
subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 and since the
spouses [Norberto and Elvira Oliveros] are just for opposing the
Issuance of the Writ of Possession, the opposition is hereby
denied since under the rule, the petition is considered as an ex-
parte proceeding. Consequently, the Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order dated April 28, 2003, filed by said Spouses is likewise
denied.[11]
CA dismissed petitioners petition. The Court of Appeals concluded that the
grant of the writ of possession is a ministerial function. Considering
that Metrobank already acquired titles to the subject properties, its
right to possess said properties as an owner became absolute. Until a
court of competent jurisdiction annuls the foreclosure sale, petitioners are
bereft of any valid title and right to prevent the issuance of a writ of
possession.
ISSUE: WON Metrobank acquired right to possess and right of ownership
HELD: Yes. Because the mortgagor(Sps Oliveros) failed to redeem the
foreclosed property within one year, therefore, the purchaser(Metrobank)
becomes the absolute owner of the property.
Metrobank purchased the properties at a public auction following the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the subject properties. Certificates of sale over the properties were
issued in favor of Metrobank and registered with the Registry of Deeds. Petitioners
as mortgagors failed to redeem the properties within the one-year period of
redemption from the registration of the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale thereof with the
Registry of Deeds; hence, Metrobank consolidated its ownership over the subject
properties.
Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended, provides:
Sec. 6. Redemption. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is
made under the special power herein before referred to, the
debtor, his successors-in-interest or any judicial creditor or
judgment creditor of said debtor or any person having a lien on the
property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which
the property is sold, may redeem the same at anytime within
the term of one year from and after the date of the sale; and
such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of section
four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive,
of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
Under the said provision, the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest may redeem the
foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register
of Deeds.
After the one-year redemption period, the mortgagor loses all interest over the
foreclosed property. The purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends
after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the
property when no redemption is made. In such a situation, the bond required
under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is no longer needed.
The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new
TCT.
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.
property at the foreclosure sale can proceed to have the title consolidated
in his name and a writ of possession issued in his favor.
Regardless of whether or not there is a pending action for
nullification of the sale at public auction, or of the foreclosure itself,
or even for the nullification of the real estate mortgage, the
purchaser at the public auction is entitled to a writ of possession
without prejudice to the outcome of the action filed by the
petitioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 August 2004 and
Resolution dated 5 November 2004 are AFFIRMED.

A clear line demarcates a discretionary act from a ministerial one

The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well

delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer
or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without
regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety
or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a
public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the
duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not
ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the
same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or
judgment/

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.

It is a settled rule that after the consolidation of title in the buyers

name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession
becomes a matter of right.

The pendency of an action questioning the validity of a mortgage

cannot bar the issuance of the writ of possession after title to the
property has been consolidated in the mortgagee. Thus, it follows that at
the expiration of the period of redemption, the mortgagee who acquires the