Facts:

The case at hand involves two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari, with G.R. No. 171172 brought forth by the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and G.R. No. 200061 involving the Spouses Johnson and Evelyn Co (Spouses Co), represented by their heir Jobelle Co. The events began on November 13, 1997, when Jupiter Real Estate Ventures, Inc. and the Spouses Co borrowed the sum of ₱9,434,200.00 from Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), securing the loan with eight parcels of land under their ownership, evidenced by various Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs). Following a merger, BPI succeeded FEBTC as the creditor. Upon the default of the loan, BPI commenced foreclosure proceedings in line with Act No. 3135, prompting an auction sale on July 12, 2000, wherein BPI purchased the properties for ₱3,567,000.00. Following the expiration of the redemption period, BPI obtained ownership titles in its name.

On August 7, 2002, Spouses Co and Jupiter filed a complaint agains

...

Facts:

Loan Origination and Mortgage

• On November 13, 1997, Jupiter Real Estate Ventures, Inc. and Spouses Johnson & Evelyn Co obtained a loan amounting to P9,434,200.00 from Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC).
• As security for the loan, eight parcels of land—including improvements—and their corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. 94204 to 94209; (91437) 39728; and (91438) 39729 were mortgaged in favor of FEBTC.
• Subsequently, BPI and FEBTC merged, with BPI emerging as the surviving corporation.

Default, Foreclosure, and Sale

• Jupiter and Spouses Co defaulted in paying the loan.
• BPI, as the successor-in-interest of FEBTC, foreclosed on the mortgaged properties pursuant to Act No. 3135 (as amended).
• An auction sale was held on July 12, 2000, where BPI emerged as the highest bidder with a winning bid of P3,567,000.00.
• The Certificate of Sale was duly registered and annotated on the back of the certificates of title on August 22, 2000.
• After the expiration of the redemption period, ownership was consolidated in BPI’s name and new titles were subsequently issued.

Initiation of Litigation and Subsequent Proceedings

• On August 7, 2002, Spouses Co and Jupiter filed a complaint in RTC Branch 257 seeking the nullification of the foreclosure proceedings and damages.
• On April 29, 2003, BPI petitioned for the issuance of a writ of possession before RTC Branch 196.
• On June 12, 2003, Spouses Co and Jupiter moved to consolidate the action for annulment of foreclosure with the petition for the writ of possession; the RTC denied the consolidation on August 7, 2003.
• On September 22, 2003, Jupiter initiated a petition for corporate rehabilitation in RTC Branch 231, which later led to the issuance of a stay order affecting some proceedings.
• On October 6, 2003, Spouses Co and Jupiter sought the suspension of the writ of possession proceedings, relying on the stay order issued in connection with the rehabilitation petition, although they later admitted that such stay was lifted.
• On September 30, 2005, RTC Branch 196 issued a writ of possession in favor of BPI; however, due to an error in addressing, an amended order was subsequently issued on December 8, 2005.
• Spouses Co and Jupiter filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 2005, challenging the writ of possession; their motion for consolidation was rejected and a motion for reconsideration was later denied by the RTC (with further orders on December 15, 2005, and January 13, 2006).

Petition for Review and Appellate Proceedings

• On March 10, 2006, BPI filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the RTC’s orders regarding the writ of possession, arguing that the issuance was ministerial and not appealable because of the ex parte nature of the proceedings.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision on June 27, 2011 affirming the writ of possession and denying the appeal of Spouses Co and Jupiter.
• A subsequent CA resolution on January 9, 2012 denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Spouses Co and Jupiter.
• On February 29, 2012, the Supreme Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 171172 and 200061, citing interrelated issues and similar parties.
• Spouses Co further contested the writ’s issuance by invoking case law regarding consolidation of proceedings and alleged constitutional violations, particularly challenging the ex parte proceedings under Act No. 3135.

Issue:

Validity of the Writ of Possession

• Whether the writ of possession, issued after the expiration of the redemption period and following consolidation of title in favor of BPI, was validly issued.

Procedural and Appellate Questions

• Whether the RTC erred in giving due course to the notice of appeal filed by Spouses Co and Jupiter from its orders granting the writ of possession.
• Whether the issuance of the writ of possession – being deemed a ministerial function after title consolidation – is appealable or non-appealable.

Constitutional Challenge Regarding Act No. 3135

• Whether Act No. 3135, as amended, violates the Constitution by allowing an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession during or after the redemption period without affording the mortgagor an opportunity to be heard.

Consolidation of Proceedings

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the consolidation of the petition for writ of possession with the action for annulment of the foreclosure proceedings, given the alleged “unique and peculiar set of facts.”

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)