In foreclosure proceedings, the issuance of a writ of possession is generally a ministerial duty of the court, ensuring the purchaser can promptly possess the foreclosed property. However, this duty is not absolute. Courts must consider exceptions where third parties hold the property adversely or when the foreclosure’s validity is under serious question in a separate legal action. This balance preserves the purchaser’s rights while protecting against potential injustices arising from flawed foreclosure processes.

Mortgage Default to Eviction Notice: When Does the Bank Get the Keys?

The case of Spouses Charlie Fortaleza and Ofelia Fortaleza v. Spouses Raul Lapitan and Rona Lapitan revolves around a loan secured by a real estate mortgage, and the subsequent foreclosure when the Fortalezas failed to meet their obligations. After the Lapitans, through their son and his wife, emerged as the highest bidders at the foreclosure sale, they sought a writ of possession to claim the property. The Fortalezas resisted, questioning the mortgage’s validity and the foreclosure process. The central legal question is whether the court’s duty to issue a writ of possession is ministerial, even when the mortgagor raises serious challenges to the underlying foreclosure proceedings.

The factual backdrop begins with a loan of P1.2 million obtained by Spouses Fortaleza from Spouses Rolando and Amparo Lapitan, carrying a hefty 34% annual interest. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage on the Fortalezas’ family home. Upon default, the Lapitans pursued extrajudicial foreclosure, with their son, Dr. Raul Lapitan, and his wife Rona, successfully bidding for the property. After the redemption period lapsed, the Lapitans consolidated ownership and demanded possession, which the Fortalezas refused, leading to the legal battle.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted the Lapitans’ ex parte petition for a writ of possession, viewing it as a ministerial duty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing that challenges to the mortgage or foreclosure’s validity were not grounds to oppose the writ’s issuance. Spouses Fortaleza then elevated the case to the Supreme Court (SC), arguing procedural violations by the CA and questioning the entitlement of Spouses Lapitan to the writ, given alleged defects in the foreclosure proceedings.

Before the Supreme Court, the Fortalezas raised several key arguments. First, they alleged that the CA violated its internal rules regarding the raffle of cases, suggesting bias. Second, they contended that the writ of possession should not have been issued due to irregularities in the foreclosure and the excessive interest rates on the loan. Finally, they claimed the property was their family home and should be exempt from foreclosure. The Lapitans, on the other hand, maintained that the issuance of the writ was indeed a ministerial duty, especially after the redemption period expired and title was consolidated in their name.

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural issue first, noting that the alleged violation of the CA’s internal rules had been effectively cured by subsequent amendments to those rules. More importantly, the Court emphasized that clear and convincing evidence is required to prove bias, and mere allegations are insufficient. Absent such evidence, the presumption of impartiality on the part of the appellate court stands.

Regarding the issuance of the writ of possession, the Court reiterated the general rule that it is a ministerial duty, particularly after the redemption period has expired and ownership has been consolidated. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings where exceptions were made, such as in cases involving third parties holding the property adversely or pending actions directly challenging the foreclosure’s validity.

To illustrate the ministerial nature, Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, explicitly allows the purchaser to petition the court for possession during the redemption period. The SC stated the following in the case:

SECTION 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, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion x x x and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.

However, the Court clarified the significance of cases falling outside the coverage of the law by adding:

Accordingly, unless a case falls under recognized exceptions provided by law and jurisprudence, we maintain the ex parte, non-adversarial, summary and ministerial nature of the issuance of a writ of possession.

In the Fortaleza case, none of these exceptions applied. The Fortalezas themselves occupied the property, and they had not filed a separate action to annul the foreclosure sale. This context reinforced the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ. The Supreme Court emphasized the right of the purchaser to possess the foreclosed property without delay, rooted in ownership.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the Fortalezas’ claim that the property was exempt as a family home. While the family home is generally protected from forced sale, Article 155(3) of the Family Code provides an exception for debts secured by mortgages constituted before or after the family home’s establishment. The Fortalezas had voluntarily mortgaged the property; therefore, this protection did not apply.

Finally, the Court rejected the Fortalezas’ plea for an extended redemption period, finding that they had not made a valid offer to redeem the property within the prescribed period. The Court acknowledged that redemption laws are liberally construed, but it declined to grant leniency in the absence of a timely and proper effort to redeem.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in Fortaleza v. Lapitan reaffirms the ministerial nature of the writ of possession in foreclosure cases, subject to limited exceptions. It underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the need for mortgagors to assert their rights and defenses in a timely and appropriate manner. The ruling provides clarity on the interplay between property rights, mortgage obligations, and the legal remedies available to both mortgagors and mortgagees in foreclosure scenarios.

FAQs

What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order directing the sheriff to place a party in possession of a property. In foreclosure cases, it allows the purchaser to take possession of the foreclosed property.
Is the issuance of a writ of possession always guaranteed?	Generally, yes. Once the redemption period expires and ownership is consolidated, the court has a ministerial duty to issue the writ, meaning it must do so. However, there are exceptions, such as when third parties are adversely possessing the property or when there’s a pending case questioning the foreclosure’s validity.
What are the key exceptions to the ministerial duty?	Exceptions arise when third parties hold the property adversely to the debtor or when there is a pending legal action directly challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale. These exceptions require the court to exercise discretion and potentially hold a hearing.
What did the Spouses Fortaleza argue in their defense?	The Spouses Fortaleza argued that the mortgage was invalid due to exorbitant interest rates, the foreclosure sale was irregular, and the property was their family home, exempt from forced sale. They also claimed the appellate court violated its own internal rules.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the “family home” argument?	The Supreme Court rejected this argument because the Spouses Fortaleza had voluntarily mortgaged the property. Under Article 155(3) of the Family Code, a family home is not exempt from forced sale for debts secured by mortgages.
Can a mortgagor redeem the property after the redemption period expires?	Generally, no. The Supreme Court held that the Spouses Fortaleza had waived their right to redemption by failing to redeem the property within the one-year period. While redemption laws are liberally construed, the Court found no justifiable cause to extend the period.
What is the significance of Act No. 3135 in this case?	Act No. 3135 governs the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages. Section 7 of this Act, as amended, allows the purchaser to petition the court for a writ of possession, which the court generally must grant.
What is an ex parte motion?	An ex parte motion is a request made to the court by one party without requiring notice to the other party. In foreclosure cases, the petition for a writ of possession can be filed ex parte.

This case reinforces the principle that a writ of possession is a standard tool for purchasers in foreclosure sales, but it also highlights the limited circumstances where courts can intervene to protect the rights of mortgagors. Understanding these nuances is vital for both lenders and borrowers navigating foreclosure proceedings.

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: Spouses Charlie Fortaleza and Ofelia Fortaleza, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Raul Lapitan and Rona Lapitan, Respondents., G.R. No. 178288, August 15, 2012