In Anecito Campos vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, the Supreme Court affirmed that a bank is entitled to a writ of possession over a foreclosed property, even if the mortgagor made improvements on the land. The Court emphasized the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue the writ after the consolidation of ownership. This ruling reinforces the binding nature of mortgage contracts, particularly clauses that include future improvements as part of the collateral, and underscores the principle of autonomy of contracts.

Foreclosure Fallout: Can a Builder in Good Faith Halt a Bank’s Possession?

The case revolves around a loan obtained by Anecito Campos from Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC), now merged with Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), secured by a mortgage over several lots. Campos constructed a two-story building on one of the lots, allegedly with the bank’s knowledge. Due to business losses, Campos defaulted on the loan, which ballooned to P11 million. BPI foreclosed the mortgaged properties and, as the highest bidder, consolidated ownership after Campos failed to redeem them. The bank then filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted.

Campos sought to suspend the writ, claiming he built the structure in good faith and should be reimbursed for its value, invoking Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code. However, the bank cited the mortgage contract, which included all existing and future improvements as part of the collateral. The RTC denied Campos’ motion, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed, stating that the RTC’s duty to issue the writ was ministerial. The Supreme Court (SC) then reviewed the CA’s decision.

The Supreme Court denied Campos’ petition. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and would generally not disturb the factual findings of lower courts. The primary issue was whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying Campos’ motion to suspend the writ of possession.

The Court cited Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, which allows a purchaser in a foreclosure sale to file an ex parte motion for a writ of possession. According to the law:

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 xxx 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.

The Court explained that an ex parte proceeding does not require notice to the adverse party. Campos’ remedy was to file a separate civil action for the value of the improvements, not to suspend the writ of possession. The Court also reiterated that after consolidation of ownership, the purchaser has absolute ownership, making the issuance of a writ of possession a ministerial duty of the court. The only exception is when a third party holds the property adversely to the mortgagor.

Furthermore, the Court clarified the meaning of “grave abuse of discretion,” noting it is not simply an error of judgment but a capricious and whimsical exercise of power equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The RTC’s actions were in line with Act No. 3135 and established jurisprudence, thus there was no abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court distinguished this case from Policarpio v. Court of Appeals, which Campos cited. In Policarpio, the trial court acted arbitrarily in receiving evidence ex parte after repeatedly calling for the mortgagor’s heirs to present evidence of their good faith. More importantly, the Policarpio case involved a judicial foreclosure, where the mortgagee bank did not immediately acquire possession and the mortgagor’s heirs rebuilt on the property three years after the consolidation of title. This subsequent construction brought the case under the rules on accession, not the provisions of Act No. 3135.

The Court emphasized that Articles 448, 450, and 546 of the Civil Code, concerning builders in good faith, apply when a person builds on the land of another, not when an owner builds on their own property. In this case, the mortgage contracts specifically included all existing and future improvements as part of the mortgage.

The Court then invoked the principle of autonomy of contracts under Article 1306 of the Civil Code:

Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Contractual obligations have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. The Court concluded that it would not interfere with a valid contract freely entered into by the parties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the mortgagor, Campos, was entitled to suspend the implementation of a writ of possession based on his claim of being a builder in good faith on the foreclosed property. He argued that he should be reimbursed for the value of the improvements he made.
What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order directing the sheriff to place a person in possession of real property. In foreclosure cases, it allows the purchaser (often the bank) to take possession of the property after the redemption period has expired.
What does it mean for a court’s duty to be “ministerial”?	When a court’s duty is ministerial, it means the court has no discretion and must perform the action as directed by law. In the context of a writ of possession, the court must issue the writ if the legal requirements are met.
What is an ex parte motion?	An ex parte motion is a request made to the court by one party without providing notice to the other party. In foreclosure cases, the bank can file an ex parte motion for a writ of possession.
How did the mortgage contract affect the outcome of the case?	The mortgage contract included a clause stating that all existing and future improvements on the property were part of the mortgage. This clause was crucial because it negated Campos’ claim of being a builder in good faith and entitled to reimbursement.
What is the principle of “autonomy of contracts”?	The principle of autonomy of contracts means that parties are free to establish the terms and conditions of their agreements, as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. This principle underscores the binding nature of freely entered contracts.
Why was the Policarpio case not applicable here?	The Policarpio case was different because it involved a judicial foreclosure where the mortgagor’s heirs rebuilt on the property after the bank had already consolidated title. The court found the bank’s actions arbitrary. Campos’ case involved extrajudicial foreclosure and a mortgage contract explicitly including future improvements.
What recourse did Campos have?	Campos could have filed a separate civil action to seek reimbursement for the value of the improvements he made. However, he could not use this claim to prevent the bank from obtaining a writ of possession.

This case clarifies the rights of banks in foreclosure proceedings and reinforces the importance of clear and comprehensive mortgage contracts. It serves as a reminder that contractual obligations must be honored, and courts will generally not interfere with agreements freely entered into by the parties.

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: ANECITO CAMPOS VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, G.R. No. 207597, May 30, 2016