G.R. No. 147820 - Spouses Santiago vs. Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc.

On April 12, 2000, the respondent, Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc., filed an ex parte petition before the RTC of Cabanatuan City seeking a writ of possession over two parcels of land.
The properties, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. NT-196197 (337 square meters) and NT-187791 (345 square meters), were located in San Mariano, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.
The respondent alleged that the petitioner spouses, Ruben and Inocencia Santiago, had executed a deed of real estate mortgage over the properties and corresponding improvements as security for two separate loans amounting to P500,000.00 and P120,000.00, respectively.

After the petitioner spouses defaulted in their loan payments, the respondent foreclosed upon the properties extrajudicially.
The properties were sold at a public auction on February 16, 1998, at which the respondent was the highest bidder.
The sheriff executed separate certificates of sale, which were subsequently registered with the Register of Deeds on March 6, 1998, and October 28, 1998, respectively.
Upon failure of the petitioner spouses to redeem the property within the prescribed period, the titles were consolidated in the name of the respondent.

Although the petitioner spouses were aware of the ex parte petition, they did not file a formal comment on it; instead, they requested more time to repurchase the properties.
During the hearing on July 18, 2000, the petitioners, through counsel, asked for an extension to secure the necessary funds for repurchase.
The respondent’s counsel indicated openness to negotiation but insisted on immediate submission of the petition for the court’s resolution, which the petitioner’s counsel agreed to.
The RTC, acting on the resolution proposal, declared the petition submitted for its resolution.

Despite the plea for more time, the petitioner spouses ultimately failed to raise the funds to repurchase the properties.
On September 1, 2000, the RTC issued an order granting the petition and subsequently ordered the clerk of court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the respondent.
The clerk of court complied by issuing the writ of possession on September 4, 2000.
The sheriff, acting in accordance with the order, demanded that the petitioners vacate the premises within three (3) days, which the petitioners refused to do.

In response to the writ of possession, the petitioner spouses filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the RTC order and the writ of possession, seeking also injunctive relief.
The petitioners argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by granting the petition without any documentary or testimonial evidence being formally offered and marked.
The petitioners further contended that the RTC order did not clearly state the facts and the law on which it was based, as required by Section 1, Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The respondent, in its comment, maintained that foreclosure proceedings carry a presumption of regularity and that the ex parte nature of the petition did not necessitate the formal offering of evidence.

On February 5, 2001, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari as lacking merit and also denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on April 6, 2001.
The CA noted that the appropriate remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 for setting aside the sale and canceling the writ of possession was not pursued by the petitioners.
The fundamental issue of the proper procedural remedy and the fact that the writ of possession is considered a ministerial function formed the basis for the CA’s decision.

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the petition for a writ of possession without the submission and formal offering of documentary and testimonial evidence.
Whether the ex parte nature of the petition inherently precludes the necessity of such evidence before the issuance of a writ of possession.
Whether the petitioner spouses were deprived of their right to due process by not being given an opportunity to be heard prior to the issuance of the writ of possession.
Whether the petitioners’ chosen remedy (i.e., filing a petition for certiorari instead of pursuing the proper remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135) barred them from challenging the RTC’s order.