This case clarifies that a writ of possession issued in favor of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale remains enforceable even during an appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that once the redemption period expires and the purchaser consolidates ownership, the right to possess the property becomes absolute. This means the new owner can enforce the writ immediately, ensuring they can take control of their property without waiting for the appeal to conclude.

Mortgaged Land, Lost Dreams: When Can a Bank Enforce a Writ of Possession?

The case of Gloria and Martin Motos versus Real Bank revolves around a loan, a foreclosed property, and a writ of possession. The spouses Motos obtained loans from Real Bank, secured by a mortgage on their land. Upon their default, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and emerged as the highest bidder. After the redemption period lapsed, Real Bank obtained a writ of possession from the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The spouses Motos attempted to quash the writ, arguing lack of notice, but the RTC denied their motion. The Court of Appeals initially ruled that the spouses had the right to appeal, yet upheld the writ’s issuance. This led to the central question: Can a writ of possession be enforced while an appeal is pending?

This issue necessitates addressing two underlying questions. First, is the issuance of a writ of possession an ex parte proceeding? Second, is an order denying a motion to quash the writ appealable? The Supreme Court tackled these questions to clarify the rights of both the mortgagee and the mortgagor in foreclosure cases.

A writ of possession is a court order directing the sheriff to place someone in possession of a property. It’s used in land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosures, and, importantly, extrajudicial foreclosures under Act No. 3135. This law governs how a purchaser at a foreclosure sale can gain possession of the property.

SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period…

The key here is that the petition for a writ of possession is considered an ex parte motion. This means it’s filed and granted for the benefit of one party without needing notice to or consent from the other. During the redemption period, the court’s role in issuing the writ is ministerial, requiring only a proper motion, approved bond, and absence of third parties involved. Once the redemption period expires, the purchaser’s right to possess the property becomes absolute, based on their ownership. A bond is no longer required at this stage.

The Motos spouses argued they were not notified of the hearing for the writ’s issuance. However, the Supreme Court confirmed that as an ex parte proceeding, they were not entitled to such notice. Any objections to the sale’s validity should have been raised in a separate proceeding under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, which allows the debtor to petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession.

SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested… petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of possession cancelled… and the court shall take cognizance of this petition… but the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal.

The Supreme Court underscored that even if the mortgagor appeals the denial of their petition to set aside the sale, the writ of possession remains in effect. In this case, the spouses Motos erroneously filed a motion to quash the writ instead of a petition to set aside the sale. Consequently, the denial of their motion was an interlocutory order, meaning it didn’t fully resolve the case, and thus, was not appealable. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in directing the RTC to give due course to the spouses’ appeal. Even if the proper procedure was followed, Act No. 3135 clearly states that the writ’s enforcement continues during the appeal process.

FAQs

What was the main legal issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether a writ of possession, issued to the purchaser of a foreclosed property, can be enforced while the mortgagor’s appeal is pending.
What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order commanding the sheriff to place someone in possession of a property, often used after a foreclosure sale.
What does “ex parte” mean in the context of a writ of possession?	“Ex parte” means that the petition for the writ is filed and granted for the benefit of one party without needing to notify or get consent from the other party.
What is the redemption period in a foreclosure case?	The redemption period is the timeframe during which the original owner can reclaim the property by paying the outstanding debt and associated costs.
What happens after the redemption period expires?	After the redemption period expires, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property and has the right to possess it.
What should a mortgagor do if they believe the foreclosure sale was invalid?	They should file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession within thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, as per Section 8 of Act No. 3135.
Is an order denying a motion to quash a writ of possession appealable?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that such an order is interlocutory and not appealable because it doesn’t fully resolve the issue of the sale’s validity.
What is the effect of an appeal on the enforcement of a writ of possession?	Even if the mortgagor appeals a judgment upholding the sale and issuance of the writ, the writ of possession remains in effect and enforceable during the appeal process.

Ultimately, this case underscores the strength of a purchaser’s right to possession after a foreclosure sale. It reinforces the principle that once ownership is consolidated, the writ can be enforced immediately, providing certainty for the new owner. This certainty encourages participation in foreclosure sales, contributing to a more efficient credit market.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Motos vs. Real Bank, G.R. No. 171386, July 17, 2009