G.R. No. 157660 - Mallari vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

Eligio P. Mallari (petitioner) obtained a loan from Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (respondent).
As security for the loan, petitioner executed a Deed of Mortgage over a parcel of land located in Pampanga.

Due to petitioner’s failure to pay the loan, respondent initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding.
The respondent became the highest bidder at the public auction sale.
A Certificate of Sale was issued in respondent’s favor, and this certificate was annotated on the title of the subject property on May 20, 1999.

Petitioner failed to redeem the property within the redemption period, which expired on May 20, 2000.
Respondent subsequently consolidated title to the foreclosed property.
Petitioner’s original certificate of title was cancelled, and a new title was issued in the name of the respondent on August 30, 2000.

On January 18, 2001, respondent filed an ex-parte petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of a writ of possession under Act No. 3135.
On March 22, 2001, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss/oppose the petition, asserting that there was a pending action for declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings (filed on May 16, 2000).
Despite petitioner’s opposition, the RTC issued an Order granting respondent’s petition for a writ of possession on May 18, 2001.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order was subsequently denied.

Under the law, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to immediate possession.
The issuance of the writ of possession is a ministerial act, binding on the RTC even if there is a pending nullity action regarding the foreclosure process.
The appropriate remedy in the case was an appeal, not certiorari.

Upholding the grant of the writ of possession in favor of respondent.
Denying the RTC’s reconsideration of its Order ordering the deputy sheriff to implement the writ of possession.
Erroneously holding that certiorari is unavailable since the remedy of appeal remained.

Whether petitioner could avail the remedy of certiorari to assail the RTC’s issuance of the writ of possession despite the existence of an alternative remedy via appeal or petition under Act No. 3135.

Whether the issuance of the writ of possession by the RTC is a ministerial act that courts are compelled to enforce regardless of any pending challenges, such as the nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure.

Whether the CA committed reversible error in holding that certiorari would not lie and maintaining that the proper remedy was an appeal under the prescribed procedure.