G.R. No. 95095 - United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Reyes

The Espiritu spouses obtained credit accommodations amounting to P260,000 from United Coconut Plantters Bank.
These credit accommodations were secured by real estate mortgages over four parcels of land located in Kawit, Cavite.

Upon default in payment, the Espiritu spouses’ properties were extrajudicially foreclosed.
At the public auction held on January 12, 1982, petitioner acquired the properties and was issued a certificate of sale.
Due to the spouses’ failure to redeem the foreclosed properties, the petitioner consolidated its ownership and secured new Transfer Certificates of Title.

On February 16, 1990, the petitioner filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 598-90 before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22.
The petitioner sought possession of the subject properties, which were still occupied by the Espiritu spouses.

Respondent Judge Luis R. Reyes issued an order on July 6, 1990, directing the petitioner to file the proper petition including the Espiritu spouses as respondents so the court could exercise jurisdiction.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner and denied on August 14, 1990, on the ground that the motion was not under oath, not set for hearing, and the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the parties.
A second motion for reconsideration, filed on August 24, 1990, complying with the procedural requirements, was subsequently denied on August 29, 1990, for lack of merit.

The petitioner questioned whether the lower court’s denial of its ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of possession constituted grave abuse of discretion.
The petitioner relied on Section 7 of Act No. 3135 (as amended), which authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion for a writ of possession and suggests that no further petition should be required after the redemption period lapses.
The respondent judge contended that a proper petition was necessary to achieve jurisdiction over the subject properties and the Espiritu spouses, emphasizing the bond requirement as a safeguard during the redemption period.

The decision references De Gracia vs. San Jose, which explained that during the redemption period, upon filing an ex parte motion (and posting a bond), the court is directed to issue a writ of possession as a matter of course.
IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corp. vs. Nera was cited to support the proposition that post-redemption, the purchaser may obtain a writ of possession without the need for a bond.
The Court noted that after the redemption period, when the purchaser’s title becomes absolute, there is no legal basis for imposing a bond requirement to protect the judgment debtor’s rights.

The petitioner had already consolidated its ownership by securing new titles to the foreclosed properties.
There were no third-party rights implicated, reinforcing the view that the issuance of the writ of possession should be ministerial.

Whether the denial of an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession after the expiration of the redemption period constitutes grave abuse of discretion by the lower court.

The petitioner argued that Section 7 of Act No. 3135 authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion for a writ of possession without the requirement of filing a proper petition.
The respondent judge, however, maintained that jurisdiction over the subject matter necessitated the inclusion of the Espiritu spouses in the petition.

Whether the bond requirement imposed during the redemption period should apply after the expiration of the redemption period, particularly when the purchaser’s title has already been consolidated.
Whether the procedural due process requirements are met by the filing of an ex parte motion in lieu of a proper petition involving all parties concerned.