Case Summary (G.R. No. 147820)
Background and Procedural History
On April 12, 2000, the respondent filed an Ex Parte Petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City seeking a writ of possession over the identified properties, following the alleged failure of the petitioners to repay their loans. The respondent bank claimed to have foreclosed on the properties extrajudicially, subsequently being the highest bidder during the public auction held on February 16, 1998. After a series of procedural steps, including the registration of the sheriff's certificates of sale and the consolidation of titles, the respondent sought forcible possession of the real estate.
Petitioners' Response and Court Orders
The petitioners, although initially aware of the respondent's petition, did not file a comment until a subsequent hearing on July 18, 2000, where they requested additional time to raise funds for repurchase. The RTC indicated openness to negotiations but ultimately ruled on September 1, 2000, granting the writ of possession. The clerk of court issued the writ on September 4, 2000, leading to the petitioners being asked to vacate the properties, which they refused. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals, claiming that the RTC had acted with grave abuse of discretion by granting the writ without proper evidence.
Court of Appeals' Decision
On February 5, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, asserting that the RTC's issuance of the writ of possession was neither arbitrary nor without basis. The appellate court affirmed that the burden was on the petitioners to provide evidence against the presumption of regularity in the foreclosure process and that the nature of the ex parte petition did not necessitate formal evidence. The petitioners subsequently sought a review of the appellate court's decision, arguing the absence of evidence invalidated the RTC's order.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals. It emphasized that a writ of possession following extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is primarily ministerial. The court reiterated that the lack of formal evidence at the RTC stage did not amount to grave abuse of discretion, as the ex parte petition allowed for such proceedings without the need for prior notice or a hearing to the petitioners.
Analysis of Legal Principles
The Supreme Court distinguished the procedural aspects of a writ of possession under Act No. 3135, noting that the law explicitly permits the issuance of such writs based on verified petitions that meet the legal requirements. The Court clarified that claims of grave abuse of discretion must be accompanied by strong evidence, and the responsibility lied on the petitioners to contest the foreclosure process effectively if they believed the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 147820)
Case Background
- On April 12, 2000, the respondent, Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc., filed an Ex Parte Petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, seeking a writ of possession for two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. NT-196197 and NT-187791 located in San Mariano, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.
- The bank claimed that petitioners Ruben and Inocencia Santiago executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the properties as security for loans amounting to P500,000.00 and P120,000.00, respectively.
- The petitioners defaulted on their loans, prompting the bank to foreclose the mortgage extrajudicially. The properties were sold at a public auction on February 16, 1998, where the bank was the highest bidder, resulting in the issuance of separate certificates of sale.
Proceedings in the RTC
- The bank argued that since the petitioners failed to redeem the properties within the prescribed period, it consolidated the titles in its name.
- The bank requested the RTC to issue a writ of possession to authorize the sheriff to take possession of the properties and evict the petitioners.
- The petitioners, despite being aware of the petition, did not file a comment but instead requested more time to repurchase the properties during the hearing on July 18, 2000.
- The RTC, after hearing the case, issued an order on S