ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 167948.� August 8, 2005]
TAN vs. PSB
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2005.
G.R. No. 167948 (Charles Yu Kock Tan vs. Philippine Savings Bank.)
For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals decision [1] cralaw dated 2 November 2004 which affirmed the Decision dated 30 October 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200.
As summarized by the appellate court, the facts of the case are as follows:
2. In 1999 and 2000, Charles Yu Kock L. Tan and Elena Yap Tan, both of legal age, spouses and residents of Real Street, Almanza, Las Piñas City, obtained several loans from petitioner in the principal amounts of and subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the following promissory notes (PNs) that they executed in the latter's favor, to wit:
PN NUMBER������������������������������������������ DATE������������������������������������� PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT
LP/CML#99-016������������������������������������������ October 29, 1999������������������� P28 Million
LP/CML#2000-004�������������������������������������� June 20,2000������������������������� 1,188,444.82
LP/CML#2000-004A������������������������������������ August 28,2000���������������������� 1,433,723.00
.
3. As collaterals to secure the prompt repayment of the foregoing loans, the spouses Tan offered to petitioner two (2) parcels of land in Bo. Almanza, Las Piñas City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-11107-A (50071) and No. T-9516-A (50072) issued by the Registry of Deeds for Metro Manila District IV in the name of Charles Yu Kock L. Tan and more specifically described as follows:
.
and to this and they executed in favor of petitioner five (5) deeds of Real Estate Mortgage dated and notarized on May 26, 1995, February 2, 1996, October 18, 1999, July 13, 2000 and September 4, 2000. . .
4. The above-named bank borrowers defaulted in the settlement of their loan obligations which, as of April 30, 2001, totaled P40,918,097.90 inclusive of interests, penalty charges and other fees, as computed in their Statement of Account. . .
5. Demands for payment of the loans were made by petitioner upon the said borrowers, but the same was not heeded, forcing the former to refer their accounts to its external counsel for purposes of foreclosing the mortgages. And acting on said referral, counsel addressed a letter-petition to the Executive Judge of this Honorable Court, through the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff, to foreclose said mortgages under Act No. 3135 as amended. . .
6. The Ex-Officio Sheriff issued on May 28, 2001 her Notice of Sheriff's Sale scheduling the foreclosure on July 9, 2001 in Las Piñas.� She also complied with the posting and publication requirements of Act No. 3135 as amended by causing the Notice to be posted in three public places in Las Piñas for not less than 20 days and to be published for three (3) consecutive weeks in the Tagalog Chronicle, particularly its May 31, June 7 and 14, 2001 issues, which is a newspaper of general circulation in the City. . .
7. The public auction was conducted as scheduled. Petitioner participated thereat and submitted the highest and winning bid, for which reason a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor by the Ex- Officio Sheriff, which Certificate was recorded in the Registry of Property on September 18, 2001. . .
8. Desirous of taking possession of the properties it purchased, petitioner through counsel demanded from the mortgagors the surrender to it of possession thereof, but the demand was also not heeded. . .
9. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended which reads:
.
petitioner has the right to be placed in possession of the properties it purchased thereunder upon the posting of the bond equivalent to the use of the properties for 12 months to answer for damages that the mortgagors may suffer because of the issuance of the writ upon showing that the foreclosure was made without violation of the mortgage or without compliance with the Act.
10. Petitioner is ready, willing and able to post the bond under the law.
On 30 October 2002, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Let a writ of possession be issued in favor of the petitioner directing the Sheriff of this Court to place the petitioner in possession of the subject properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-11107-A (50071) and T-9516-A (50072) of the Registry of Deeds of Las Piñas City.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court.
In the present petition, petitioner raised two (2) issues, thus:
A) THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING PETITIONER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PRAYED ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF POSSESSION BY RESPONDENT AS THE DOCTRINE OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE EX-PARTE UNDER ACT NO. 3135 IS NOT ABSOLUTE.
B) THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED BY NOT RULING THAT THERE WAS NO VALID NOR LEGAL JUSTIFICTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION TO RESPONDENT CONSIDERING THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE LOAN FULLY PAID BUT ALSO ACT NO. 3135 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ABOVE- ENTITLED CASE AS SUBSEQUENT PROMISSORY NOTES AND MORTGAGES ARE NULL AND VOID AND THERE WERE NO REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES VIOLATED.
At the outset, it must be noted that the issues raised in the present petition are the very the same issues raised in the appellate court.
The present petition hinges on the validity of the writ of possession issued by the trial court.
A writ of possession is an order whereby the sheriff is commanded to place a person in possession of a real or personal property. [2] cralaw
The judge to whom an application for writ of possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. As a rule, after the consolidation of the title in the buyer's name, for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function. As such, the court neither exercises the official discretion or judgment. Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession. Regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of course to the eventual outcome of said case. [3] cralaw
In the present petition, and as squarely raised in the appellate court and the trial court, petitioner contends that they were made to sign numerous deeds of mortgages, forms and promissory notes in blank by the officers of respondent bank, thus, making it appear that petitioner incurred loans other than that released to them. As above-explained, however, this matter cannot be raised in a petition for issuance of a writ of possession.
As a rule, any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a ground for refusing the issuance of a wit of possession. [4] cralaw The right of the purchaser to have possession of the subject property would not be defeated notwithstanding the pendency of a civil case seeking the annulment of the mortgage or of the extrajudicial foreclosure. Indeed, under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, even if the mortgagor files a petition assailing the writ of possession granted to the buyer and the sale at public auction within thirty (30) days from the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the buyer at public auction of the property, and the court denies the same, the buyer may appeal the order of denial. However, the buyer at public auction remains in possession of the property pending resolution of the appeal. We have consistently ruled that it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure. The trial court has no discretion on this mater. [5] cralaw The judge issuing the order following these express provisions of law cannot be charged with having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. [6] cralaw If only to stress the writ's ministerial character, we have, in previous cases, disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that the issuance of the same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment itself. [7] cralaw
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis with Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria-Tirona and Arturo D. Brion, concurring.
[2] cralaw Chailease Finance Corporation v. Ma, G.R. No. 151941, 15 August 2003, 409 SCRA 250.
[3] cralaw Idolor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161028, 31 January 2005.
[4] cralaw Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121494, 08 June 2000, 333 SCRA 189.
[5] cralaw De Vera v. Agloro, G.R. No. 155673, 14 January 2005, 448 SCRA 203.
[6] cralaw Spouses Ong v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 857, 866 (2000).
[7] cralaw Chailease Finance Corporation v. Ma, supra , note 2.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
