Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 168523 March 9, 2011
Spouses ERN!N"O a#$ !NGE%&N! E"R!%&N, Petitioners,
vs.
P'&%&PP&NE (ETER!NS )!N*, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
"E% C!ST&%%O, J.+
The ri"ht to possess a propert# follo$s the ri"ht of o$nership% conse&uentl#, it $ould be illo"ical to
hold that a person havin" o$nership of a parcel of land is barred fro' see(in" possession thereof.
)efore us is a Petition for Revie$ on !ertiorari under Rule *+ of the Rules of !ourt,
,
assailin" the
Decision
-
dated .une ,/, -//+ of the !ourt of 0ppeals 1!02 in !034.R. SP No. 56-*5. The dispositive
portion of the assailed Decision reads7
89RFOR, pre'ises considered, the present petition is hereb# 4IVN D: !O:RS and the
$rit pra#ed for accordin"l# 4R0NTD. The assailed Orders dated Nove'ber 5, -//* and .anuar# -5,
-//+ dis'issin" the e;3parte petition for issuance of $rit of possession and den#in" petitioner<s
'otion for reconsideration, respectivel#, are hereb# 0NN:==D and ST 0SID. Respondent .ud"e
is hereb# DIR!TD to issue the $rit of possession pra#ed for b# the petitioner Philippine Veterans
)an( over the sub>ect propert# covered b# T!T No. ?5@@- of the Re"istr# of Deeds for ParaAa&ue
!it#, Metro Manila.
No pronounce'ent as to costs.
SO ORDRD.
@
Factual 0ntecedents
Respondent Philippine Veterans )an( 1Veterans )an(2 is a co''ercial ban(in" institution created
under Republic 0ct 1R02 No. @+,5,
*
as a'ended b# R0 No. ?,B6.
+
On Februar# +, ,6?B, Veterans )an( "ranted petitioner spouses Fernando and 0n"elina dralin
1dralins2 a loan in the a'ount of T$o 9undred Sevent# Thousand Pesos 1P-?/,///.//2. 0s securit#
thereof, petitioners e;ecuted a Real state Mort"a"e 1RM2
B
in favor of Veterans )an( over a real
propert# situated in the Municipalit# of ParaAa&ue and re"istered in the na'e of petitioner Fernando
dralin. The 'ort"a"ed propert# is 'ore particularl# described in Transfer !ertificate of Title 1T!T2
No. -/*556. The RM $as re"istered $ith the Re"istr# of Deeds of the Province of RiCal.
?
The RM
and its subse&uent a'end'ents
5
$ere all dul# annotated at the bac( of T!T No. -/*556.
6
The dralins failed to pa# their obli"ation to Veterans )an(. Thus, on .une -5, ,65@, Veterans )an(
filed a Petition for ;tra>udicial Foreclosure
,/
of the RM $ith the Office of the !ler( of !ourt and
;3Officio Sheriff of RiCal.
In due course, the foreclosure sale $as held on Septe'ber 5, ,65@, in $hich the ;3Officio Sheriff of
RiCal sold the 'ort"a"ed propert# at public auction. Veterans )an( e'er"ed as the hi"hest bidder at
the said foreclosure sale and $as issued the correspondin" !ertificate of Sale.
,,
The said !ertificate of
Sale $as re"istered $ith the Re"istr# of Deeds of the Province of RiCal and annotated at the bac( of
T!T No. -/*556 under ntr# No. 5@3B-6+@DT3No. *@,+@30 on October -+, ,65@.
,-
:pon the dralins< failure to redee' the propert# durin" the one3#ear period provided under 0ct No.
@,@+, Veterans )an( ac&uired absolute o$nership of the sub>ect propert#. !onse&uentl#, Veterans
)an( caused the consolidation of o$nership of the sub>ect propert# in its na'e on .anuar# ,6, ,66*.
,@

The Re"ister of Deeds of ParaAa&ue, Metro Manila cancelled T!T No. -/*556 under the na'e of
Fernando dralin and replaced it $ith a ne$ transfer certificate of title, T!T No. ?5@@-,
,*
in the na'e
of Veterans )an( on Februar# @, ,66*.
Despite the fore"oin", the dralins failed to vacate and surrender possession of the sub>ect propert# to
Veterans )an(. Thus, on Ma# -*, ,66B, Veterans )an( filed an ;3Parte Petition for the Issuance of a
8rit of Possession, doc(eted as =and Re"istration !ase 1=R!2 No. /B3/B/ before )ranch -?* of the
Re"ional Trial !ourt 1RT!2 of ParaAa&ue !it#. The sa'e, ho$ever, $as dis'issed for Veterans )an(<s
failure to prosecute.
,+
On .ul# -6, -//@, Veterans )an( a"ain filed an ;3Parte Petition for Issuance of 8rit of Possession,
,B

this ti'e doc(eted as =and Re"istration !ase No. /@3/,-,, before the RT! of ParaAa&ue !it#. Veterans
)an( divul"ed in its !ertification a"ainst Foru'3Shoppin"
,?
that the earlier case, =R! No. 6B3/B/,
involvin" the sa'e sub>ect 'atter and parties, $as dis'issed.
The dralins 'oved to dis'iss
,5
the petition on the "round that the dis'issal of =R! No. 6B3/B/
constituted res >udicata.
Rulin" of the Re"ional Trial !ourt
The trial court denied the 'otion to dis'iss e;plainin" that the "round of failure to present evidence is
not a deter'ination of the 'erits of the case hence does not constitute res >udicata on the petition for
issuance of a $rit of possession.
,6
Nevertheless, the trial court found no 'erit in the Veterans )an(<s application and dis'issed the sa'e
in its Order dated Nove'ber 5, -//*.
-/
The trial court e;plained that, under para"raph 1d2 of the RM,
the Veterans )an( a"reed to ta(e possession of the dralins< propert# $ithout an# >udicial intervention.
The court held that "rantin" the $rit of possession to the Veterans )an( $ill violate the contractual
a"ree'ent of the parties. Para"raph 1d2 reads7
1d2 ffective upon the breach of an# condition of this 'ort"a"e and in addition to the re'edies herein
stipulated, the Mort"a"ee is hereb# li(e$ise appointed attorne#3in3fact of the Mort"a"or $ith full
po$ers and authorit#, $ith the use of force, if necessar# to ta(e actual possession of the 'ort"a"ed
propert#, $ithout the necessit# of an# >udicial order or an# per'ission, or po$er, to collect rents, to
e>ect tenants, to lease or sell the 'ort"a"ed propert# or an# part thereof, at a private sale $ithout
previous notice or advertise'ent of an# (ind and e;ecute the correspondin" bills of sale, lease or other
a"ree'ent that 'a# be dee'ed convenient, to 'a(e repairs or i'prove'ents on the 'ort"a"ed
propert# and pa# for the sa'e and perfor' an# other act $hich the Mort"a"ee 'a# dee' convenient
for the proper ad'inistration of the 'ort"a"ed propert#. The pa#'ent of an# e;penses advanced b# the
Mort"a"ee in connection $ith the purposes indicated herein is also "uaranteed b# this Mort"a"e and
such a'ount advanced shall bear interest at the rate of ,-E per annu'. 0n# a'ount received fro'
sale, disposal or ad'inistration above3'entioned 'a# be applied to the pa#'ent of the repairs,
i'prove'ents, ta;es and an# other incidental e;penses and obli"ations and also the pa#'ent of the
ori"inal indebtedness and interest thereof. The po$er herein "ranted shall not be revo(ed durin" the
life of this 'ort"a"e, and all acts that 'a# be e;ecuted b# the Mort"a"ee b# virtue of said po$er are
hereb# ratified. In addition to the fore"oin", the Mort"a"or also hereb# a"rees, that the 0uditor
4eneral shall $ithhold an# 'one# due or $hich 'a# beco'e due the Mort"a"or or debtor fro' the
4overn'ent or fro' an# of its instru'entalities, e;cept those e;e'pted b# la$ fro' attach'ent or
e;ecution, and appl# the sa'e in settle'ent of an# and all a'ount due to the Mort"a"ee%
-,
The trial court held that, assu'in" the contract allo$ed for the issuance of a $rit of possession,
Veterans )an(<s ri"ht to see( possession had alread# prescribed. 8ithout citin" authorit# and ade&uate
e;planation, the court held that Veterans )an( had onl# ,/ #ears fro' Februar# -*, ,65@ to see(
possession of the propert#.
Veterans )an( 'oved for the reconsideration
--
of the adverse decision. It directed the court<s attention
to para"raph 1c2 of the real estate 'ort"a"e, $hich e;pressl# "ranted the 'ort"a"ee the ri"ht to avail
itself of the re'ed# of e;tra>udicial foreclosure in case of the 'ort"a"or<s default. Para"raph 1c2 reads7
1c2 If at an# ti'e the Mort"a"or shall fail or refuse to pa# the obli"ations herein secured, or an# of the
a'ortiCations of such indebtedness $hen due, or to co'pl# $ith an# of the conditions and stipulations
herein a"reed, or shall, durin" the ti'e this 'ort"a"e is in force, institute insolvenc# proceedin"s or be
involuntaril# declared insolvent, or shall use the proceeds of this loan for purposes other than those
specified herein, or if this 'ort"a"e cannot be recorded in the correspondin" Re"istr# of Deeds, then
all the obli"ations of the Mort"a"or secured b# this Mort"a"e and all the a'ortiCation thereof shall
i''ediatel# beco'e due, pa#able and defaulted, and the Mort"a"ee 'a# i''ediatel# foreclose this
'ort"a"e >udiciall# in accordance $ith the Rules of !ourt, or e;tra3>udiciall# in accordance $ith 0ct
No. @,@+, as a'ended, and under 0ct -B,-, as a'ended. For the purpose of e;tra3>udicial foreclosure
the Mort"a"or hereb# appoints the Mort"a"ee his attorne#3in3fact to sell the propert# 'ort"a"ed under
0ct No. @,@+, as a'ended, to si"n all docu'ents and perfor' an# act re&uisite and necessar# to
acco'plish said purpose and to appoint its substitutes as such attorne#3in3fact $ith the sa'e po$ers as
above specified. ; ; ;
-@
The 'otion for reconsideration $as set for hearin" on .anuar# -5, -//+. Due to a conflict of schedule,
Veterans )an(<s counsel 'oved
-*
to reset the hearin" on its 'otion. In apparent denial of the 'otion to
reset, the trial court proceeded to den# Veterans )an(<s 'otion for reconsideration in the Order dated
.anuar# -5, -//+.
-+
The trial court reiterated that para"raph 1d2 of the RM allo$ed Veterans )an( to
ta(e i''ediate possession of the propert# $ithout need of a >udicial order. It $ould be redundant for
the court to issue a $rit of possession in its favor.
This pro'pted Veterans )an( to file a Petition for Manda'us $ith Pra#er for Issuance of a
Preli'inar# Mandator# In>unction
-B
before the !0.
First a'on" its ar"u'ents, Veterans )an( 'aintained that it $as the trial court<s 'inisterial dut#
-?
to
"rant a $rit of possession to the 'ort"a"ee $ho has consolidated and re"istered the propert# in its
na'e.
Veterans )an( then assailed the trial court<s holdin" that its ri"ht to a $rit of possession had alread#
prescribed. Respondent 'aintained that the $rit can be issued at an# ti'e after the 'ort"a"or failed to
redee' the foreclosed propert#.
-5
=astl#, Veterans )an( ar"ued that, contrar# to the trial court<s findin", it did not contract a$a# its ri"ht
to an e;tra>udicial foreclosure under 0ct No. @,@+, as a'ended, b# the inclusion of para"raph 1d2 in
the RM. Veterans )an( pointed out that, as evidenced b# para"raph 1c2 of the RM, it e;pressl#
reserved the ri"ht to avail of the re'edies under 0ct No. @,@+.
-6
Rulin" of the !ourt of 0ppeals
@/
The appellate court ruled in favor of Veterans )an(.
It held that the contractual provision in para"raph 1d2 to i''ediatel# ta(e possession of the 'ort"a"ed
propert# $ithout need of >udicial intervention is distinct fro' the ri"ht to avail of e;tra>udicial
foreclosure under Section ? of 0ct No. @,@+, $hich $as e;pressl# reserved b# Veterans )an( in
para"raph 1c2 of the RM. The fact that the t$o para"raphs do not ne"ate each other is evidenced b#
the &ualif#in" phrase Fin addition to the re'edies herein stipulatedF found in para"raph 1c2.
9avin" availed itself of the re'ed# of e;tra>udicial foreclosure, Veterans )an(, as the hi"hest bidder,
has the ri"ht to a $rit of possession. This ri"ht 'a# be availed of an# ti'e after the bu#er consolidates
o$nership. In fact, the issuance of the $rit of possession is a 'inisterial function, the ri"ht to $hich
cannot be en>oined or sta#ed, even b# an action for annul'ent of the 'ort"a"e or the foreclosure sale
itself.
The trial court<s rulin" that Veterans )an(<s ri"ht to possess has prescribed is li(e$ise erroneous. 0s
alread# stated, Veterans )an(<s ri"ht to possess the propert# is not based on their contract but on 0ct
No. @,@+.
Since the issuance of a $rit of possession is a 'inisterial act of the trial >ud"e, 'anda'us lies to
co'pel the perfor'ance of the said dut#.
Petitioners i''ediatel# filed this petition for revie$.
Issues
Petitioners sub'it the follo$in" issues for our consideration7
,. 8hether 'anda'us $as resorted to as a substitute for a lost appeal
-. 8hether 'anda'us is the proper re'ed# to see( a revie$ of the final orders of the trial court
@. 8hether the consolidation of o$nership of the e;tra>udiciall# foreclosed propert# throu"h a
Deed of Sale is in accordance $ith la$
*. 8hether the issuance of a $rit of possession under 0ct GNo.H @,@+ is sub>ect to the statute of
li'itations
@,
Our Rulin"
Propriet# of the Re'ed# of Manda'us
Petitioners ar"ue that Veterans )an( availed itself of the re'ed# of 'anda'us as a substitute for a lost
appeal.
@-
Petitioners narrate the relevant dates that alle"edl# sho$ the belatedness and i'propriet# of
the petition for 'anda'us. Veterans )an( received the Order dated Nove'ber 5, -//* on Nove'ber
,5, -//*, thus it had until Dece'ber @, -//* to file a 'otion for reconsideration. Since Dece'ber @,
-//* $as declared a non3$or(in" holida#, Veterans )an( filed its 'otion for reconsideration on the
ne;t $or(in" da#, Dece'ber B, -//*. 8ith the said dates, it had onl# one da# left fro' receipt of the
.anuar# -5, -//+ Order, or until Februar# ,/, -//+, to file an appeal 1citin" Section -, Rule --2 of the
Rules of !ourt. Since Veterans )an( did not file an appeal on the follo$in" da#, it had lost its ri"ht to
appeal and the assailed orders alle"edl# attained finalit#.
Respondent counters that the issuance of a $rit of possession is not an ordinar# action for $hich the
rules on appeal appl#. The $rit bein" a 'ere 'otion or an order of e;ecution, appeal is not the proper
re'ed# to &uestion the trial court<s rulin". In fact, Section ,, Rule *, of the Rules of !ourt provides
that no appeal 'a# be ta(en fro' an order of e;ecution, but Rule B+ special civil actions are
available.
@@
4iven that the issuance of the $rit of possession is a 'inisterial act of the >ud"e,
respondent 'aintains that a petition for 'anda'us is the proper re'ed#.
Respondent adds that, even if appeal $ere available, the sa'e is not the plain, speed# and ade&uate
re'ed# to co'pel the perfor'ance of the 'inisterial act.
@*
Respondent 'aintains that Section @ of Rule
B+ reco"niCes that the re'ed# of 'anda'us is available in con>unction $ith an appeal. The &ualif#in"
phrase Fand there is no appeal GavailableH,F $hich appears in certiorari and prohibition petitions, is
conspicuousl# 'issin" for petitions for 'anda'us.
8e rule that 'anda'us is a proper re'ed# to co'pel the issuance of a $rit of possession. The purpose
of 'anda'us is to co'pel the perfor'ance of a 'inisterial dut#. 0 'inisterial act is Fone $hich an
officer or tribunal perfor's in a "iven state of facts, in a prescribed 'anner, in obedience to the
'andate of le"al authorit#, $ithout re"ard to or the e;ercise of his o$n >ud"'ent upon the propriet# or
i'propriet# of the act done.F
@+
The issuance of a $rit of possession is outlined in Section ? of 0ct No. @,@+, as a'ended b# 0ct No.
*,,5, $hich provides7
S!. ?. In an# sale 'ade under the provisions of this 0ct, the purchaser 'a# petition the !ourt of First
Instance of the province or place $here the propert# or an# part thereof is situated, to "ive hi'
possession thereof durin" the rede'ption period, furnishin" bond in an a'ount e&uivalent to the use of
the propert# for a period of t$elve 'onths, to inde'nif# the debtor in case it be sho$n that the sale
$as 'ade $ithout violatin" the 'ort"a"e or $ithout co'pl#in" $ith the re&uire'ents of GthisH 0ct.
Such petition shall be 'ade under oath and filed in for' of an ex parte ,o-.o# ; ; ; and the court
shall, upon approval of the bond, or$er -ha- a /r.- o0 possess.o# .ssue, addressed to the sheriff of the
province in $hich the propert# is situated, $ho shall e;ecute said order i''ediatel#.
Durin" the period of rede'ption, the 'ort"a"ee is entitled to a $rit of possession upon depositin" the
approved bond. 8hen the rede'ption period e;pires $ithout the 'ort"a"or e;ercisin" his ri"ht of
rede'ption, the 'ort"a"or is dee'ed to have lost all interest over the foreclosed propert#, and the
purchaser ac&uires absolute o$nership of the propert#. The purchaser<s ri"ht is aptl# described thus7
!onse&uentl#, the purchaser, $ho has a ri"ht to possession after the e;piration of the rede'ption
period, beco'es the absolute o$ner of the propert# $hen no rede'ption is 'ade. In this re"ard, the
bond is no lon"er needed. The purchaser can de'and possession at an# ti'e follo$in" the
consolidation of o$nership in his na'e and the issuance to hi' of a ne$ T!T. 0fter consolidation of
title in the purchaser<s na'e for failure of the 'ort"a"or to redee' the propert#, the purchaser<s ri"ht
to possession ripens into the absolute ri"ht of a confir'ed o$ner. 0t that point, the issuance of a $rit
of possession, upon proper application and proof of title beco'es 'erel# a 'inisterial function.
ffectivel#, the court cannot e;ercise its discretion.
Therefore, the issuance b# the RT! of a $rit of possession in favor of the respondent in this case is
proper. 8e have consistentl# held that the dut# of the trial court to "rant a $rit of possession in such
instances is 'inisterial, and the court 'a# not e;ercise discretion or >ud"'ent ; ; ;
@B
8ith the consolidated title, the purchaser beco'es entitled to a $rit of possession and the trial court
has the 'inisterial dut# to issue such $rit of possession.
@?
Thus, Fthe re'ed# of 'anda'us lies to
co'pel the perfor'ance of GthisH 'inisterial dut#.F
@5
Does the charter of Veterans )an( prohibit e;tra>udicial foreclosuresI
Petitioners then assail Veterans )an(<s po$er to e;tra>udiciall# foreclose on 'ort"a"es. The# 'aintain
that the le"islature intended to li'it Veterans )an( to >udicial foreclosures onl#,
@6
citin" Section ,5 of
the Veterans )an(<s charter, R0 No. @+,5, $hich provides7
Section ,5. Ri"ht of rede'ption of propert# foreclosed. J The 'ort"a"or shall have the ri"ht, $ithin
one #ear after the sale of the real estate as a result of the foreclosure of a 'ort"a"e, to redee' the
propert# b# pa#in" the a'ount fi;ed b# the court in the order of e;ecution, $ith interest thereon at the
rate specified in the 'ort"a"e, and all the costs and other >udicial e;penses incurred b# the )an( b#
reason of the e;ecution and sale, and for the custod# of said propert#.
Respondent counters that the inclusion of the phrase Ffi;ed b# the !ourtF in Section ,5 of R0 No.
@+,5 does not necessaril# 'ean that onl# >udicial foreclosures are available to Veterans )an(.
Moreover, resort to an e;tra>udicial foreclosure $as voluntaril# entered into b# the contractin" parties
in their RM.
*/
There is no 'erit in petitioners< contention.
The afore&uoted Section ,5 "rants to 'ort"a"ors of Veterans )an( the ri"ht to redee' their >udiciall#
foreclosed properties. This provision had to be included because in >udicial foreclosures, 'ort"a"ors
"enerall# do not have the ri"ht of rede'ption unless there is an e;press "rant b# la$.
*,
)ut, contrar# to petitioners< aver'ents, there is nothin" in Section ,5 $hich can be interpreted to 'ean
that Veterans )an( is li'ited to >udicial foreclosures onl#, or that it cannot avail itself of the benefits
provided under 0ct No. @,@+,
*-
as a'ended, allo$in" e;tra>udicial foreclosures.
Moreover, the availabilit# of e;tra3>udicial foreclosure to a 'ort"a"ee depends upon the a"ree'ent of
the contractin" parties. Section , of 0ct No. @,@+ provides7
Section ,. 8hen a sale is 'ade under a special po$er inserted in or attached to an# real3estate
'ort"a"e hereafter 'ade as securit# for the pa#'ent of 'one# or the fulfill'ent of an# other
obli"ation, the provisions of the follo$in" sections shall "overn as to the 'anner in $hich the sale and
rede'ption shall be effected, $hether or not provision for the sa'e is 'ade in the po$er. 1'phasis
supplied.2
In the case at bar, para"raph 1c2 of the parties< RM "ranted Veterans )an( the special po$er as
attorne#3in3fact of the petitioners to perfor' all acts necessar# for the purpose of e;tra>udicial
foreclosure under 0ct No. @,@+. Thus, there is no obstacle preventin" Veterans )an( fro' availin"
itself of the re'ed# of e;tra>udicial foreclosure.
8as the consolidation of title done in accordance $ith la$I
Petitioners ar"ue that Veterans )an( is not entitled to a $rit of possession because it failed to properl#
consolidate its title over the sub>ect propert#.
*@
The# 'aintain that the Deed of Sale e;ecuted b# the
Veterans )an( in the ban(<s o$n favor durin" the consolidation of title constitutes a pactu'
co''issoriu', $hich is prohibited under 0rticle -/55 of the !ivil !ode.
**
Respondent contends that petitioners never &uestioned the validit# of the foreclosure proceedin"s or
the auction sale. The failure to do so resulted in the ripenin" of the consolidation of o$nership.
*+
There is no 'erit in petitioners< ar"u'ent.
Pactu' co''issoriu' is Fa stipulation e'po$erin" the creditor to appropriate the thin" "iven as
"uarant# for the fulfill'ent of the obli"ation in the event the obli"or fails to live up to his
underta(in"s, $ithout further for'alit#, such as foreclosure proceedin"s, and a public sale.F
*B
FThe
ele'ents of pactu' co''issoriu', $hich enable the 'ort"a"ee to ac&uire o$nership of the
'ort"a"ed propert# $ithout the need of an# foreclosure proceedin"s, are7 1,2 there should be a
propert# 'ort"a"ed b# $a# of securit# for the pa#'ent of the principal obli"ation, and 1-2 there should
be a stipulation for auto'atic appropriation b# the creditor of the thin" 'ort"a"ed in case of non3
pa#'ent of the principal obli"ation $ithin the stipulated period.F
*?
The second ele'ent is 'issin" to characteriCe the Deed of Sale as a for' of pactu' co''issoriu'.
Veterans )an( did not, upon the petitioners< default, auto'aticall# ac&uire or appropriate the
'ort"a"ed propert# for itself. On the contrar#, the Veterans )an( resorted to e;tra>udicial foreclosure
and $as issued a !ertificate of Sale b# the sheriff as proof of its purchase of the sub>ect propert#
durin" the foreclosure sale. That Veterans )an( $ent throu"h all the sta"es of e;tra>udicial foreclosure
indicates that there $as no pactu' co''issoriu'.
Does the ri"ht to a $rit of possession prescribeI
Petitioners assail the !0<s rulin" that the issuance of a $rit of possession does not prescribe.
*5
The#
'aintain that 0rticles ,,@6,
*6
,,*6,
+/
and ,,+/
+,
of the !ivil !ode re"ardin" prescriptive periods cover
all (inds of action, $hich necessaril# include the issuance of a $rit of possession. Petitioners posit that,
for purposes of the latter, it is the five3#ear prescriptive period provided in 0rticle ,,*6 of the !ivil
!ode $hich applies because 0ct No. @,@+ itself did not provide for its prescriptive period. Thus,
Veterans )an( had onl# five #ears fro' Septe'ber ,-, ,65@, the date $hen the !ertificate of Sale $as
issued in its favor, to 'ove for the issuance of a $rit of possession.
+-
Respondent ar"ues that >urisprudence has consistentl# held that a re"istered o$ner of the land, such as
the bu#er in an auction sale, is entitled to a $rit of possession at an# ti'e after the consolidation of
o$nership.
+@
8e cannot accept petitioners< contention. 8e have held before that the purchaser<s ri"ht Fto re&uest for
the issuance of the $rit of possession of the land never prescribes.F
+*
FThe ri"ht to possess a propert#
'erel# follo$s the ri"ht of o$nership,F
++
and it $ould be illo"ical to hold that a person havin"
o$nership of a parcel of land is barred fro' see(in" possession thereof. In !alacala v. Republic of the
Philippines,
+B
the Republic $as the hi"hest bidder in the public auction but failed for a lon" period of
ti'e to e;ecute an 0ffidavit of !onsolidation and to see( a $rit of possession. !alacala insisted that,
b# such inaction, the Republic<s ri"ht over the land had prescribed, been abandoned or $aived. The
!ourt<s lan"ua"e in re>ectin" !alacala<s theor# is illu'inatin"7
GTHhe Republic<s failure to e;ecute the acts referred to b# the petitioners $ithin ten 1,/2 #ears fro' the
re"istration of the !ertificate of Sale cannot, in an# $a#, operate to restore $hatever ri"hts petitioners<
predecessors3in3interest had over the sa'e. For sure, petitioners have #et to cite an# provision of la$
or rule of >urisprudence, and $e are not a$are of an#, to the effect that the failure of a bu#er in a
foreclosure sale to secure a !ertificate of Final Sale, e;ecute an 0ffidavit of !onsolidation of
O$nership and obtain a $rit of possession over the propert# thus ac&uired, $ithin ten 1,/2 #ears fro'
the re"istration of the !ertificate of Sale $ill operate to brin" o$nership bac( to hi' $hose propert#
has been previousl# foreclosed and sold. ; ; ;
; ; ; ;
Moreover, $ith the rule that the e;piration of the ,3#ear rede'ption period forecloses the obli"ors<
ri"ht to redee' and that the sale thereb# beco'es absolute, the issuance thereafter of a final deed of
sale is at best a 'ere for'alit# and 'ere confir'ation of the title that is alread# vested in the
purchaser. ; ; ;
+?
Moreover, the provisions cited b# petitioners refer to prescription of actions. 0n action is Fdefined as
an ordinar# suit in a court of >ustice, b# $hich one part# prosecutes another for the enforce'ent or
protection of a ri"ht, or the prevention or redress of a $ron".F
+5
On the other hand FGaH petition for the
issuance of the $rit, under Section ? of 0ct No. @,@+, as a'ended, is not an ordinar# action filed in
court, b# $hich one part# Ksues another for the enforce'ent or protection of a ri"ht, or prevention or
redress of a $ron".< It is in the nature of an e; parte 'otion GinH $hich the court hears onl# one side. It
is ta(en or "ranted at the instance and for the benefit of one part#, and $ithout notice to or consent b#
an# part# adversel# affected. 0ccordin"l#, upon the filin" of a proper 'otion b# the purchaser in a
foreclosure sale, and the approval of the correspondin" bond, the $rit of possession issues as a 'atter
of course and the trial court has no discretion on this 'atter.F
+6
89RFOR, pre'ises considered, the Petition is DNID for lac( of 'erit. The !0 Decision dated
.une ,/, -//+ in !034.R. SP No. 56-*5 is 0FFIRMD.
SO OR"ERE".
M!R&!NO C. "E% C!ST&%%O
0ssociate .ustice
8 !ON!:R7
REN!TO C. CORON!
!hief .ustice
!hairperson
PRES)&TERO 1. (E%!SCO, 1R.
0ssociate .ustice
TERES&T! %EON!R"O2"E C!STRO
0ssociate .ustice
1OSE PORTUG!% PERE3
0ssociate .ustice
! R T I F I ! 0 T I O N
Pursuant to Section ,@, 0rticle VIII of the !onstitution, it is hereb# certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case $as assi"ned to the $riter of the
opinion of the !ourt<s Division.
REN!TO C. CORON!
!hief .ustice
oo-#o-es
,
Rollo, pp. 53-5.
-
!0 rollo, pp. ,6+3-/?.
@
!0 Decision, p. ,-% id. at -/B.
*
0n 0ct !reatin" the Philippine Veterans )an(, and For Other Purposes.
+
0n 0ct to Rehabilitate the Philippine Veterans )an( !reated :nder Republic 0ct No. @+,5,
Providin" the Mechanis's Therefor, and For Other Purposes.
B
!0 rollo, pp. ?/3?,.
?
Id. at B53B6.
5
Id. at ?-3?@.
6
ntr# Nos. -*66,DS3,6+6+, @6*-@DS3,6+6+, +-/,BDS3,6+6+ 1id. at B62.
,/
Id. at ?B. Notice of ;tra>udicial Sale appears on pa"e ?? of the !0 rollo.
,,
Id. at ?6.
,-
ntr# No. 5@3B-6+@ 1id. at B62.
,@
ntr# No. @,@6 0ffidavit of !onsolidation 1id., bac( of p. B62% id. at 5/35,.
,*
Id. at 5-.
,+
Respondent<s Me'orandu', p. ?% rollo, p. @//.
,B
!0 rollo, pp. 5@36,.
,?
Id. at 55.
,5
Id. at *,3*-.
,6
Order dated .ul# ,@, -//* 1id. at ,-@2.
-/
Id. at *@3*B% penned b# .ud"e )ri"ido 0rte'on M. =una.
-,
Id., dorsal portion, p. ?/.
--
Id. at *63+5.
-@
Id., dorsal portion of p. ?/.
-*
Rollo, pp. ,++3,B/.
-+
!0 rollo, pp. *?3*5.
-B
Id. at -3@5.
-?
Petition in !034.R. SP No. 56-*5, pp. ,*3,?% id. at ,+3,5.
-5
Id. at -?3@,% id. at -53@-.
-6
Id. at -/3-+% id. at -,3-B.
@/
Id. at ,6+3-/?% penned b# 0ssociate .ustice Martin S. Villara'a, .r. and concurred in b#
0ssociate .ustices =ucas P. )ersa'in and =ucenito N. Ta"le.
@,
Petitioners< Me'orandu', p. ,/% rollo, p. @@*.
@-
Id. at ,,3,-% id. at @@+3@@B.
@@
Respondent<s Me'orandu', pp. ,53-,% id. at @,,3@,*.
@*
Id. at --3-@% id. at @,+3@,B.
@+
Feria and Noche, !ivil Procedure 0nnotated, Vol. II 1-//, ed.2, p. *5?.
@B
Sa"uan v. Philippine )an( of !o''unications, 4.R. No. ,+655-, Nove'ber -@, -//?, +@5
S!R0 @6/, @6B3@6?. 'phasis supplied.
@?
)an( of the Philippine Islands v. Tara'pi, 4.R. No. ,?*655, Dece'ber ,/, -//5, +?@ S!R0
+@?, +*@% FernandeC v. spinoCa, 4.R. No. ,+B*-,, 0pril ,*, -//5, ++, S!R0 ,@B, ,+/3,+,%
Spouses !arpo v. !hua, +/5 Phil. *B-, *??3*?5 1-//+2% Philippine National )an( v. Sanao
Mar(etin" !orporation, +/@ Phil. -B/, -?*3-?+ 1-//+2.
@5
Spouses !arpo v. !hua, +/5 Phil. *B-, *?? 1-//+2.
@6
Petitioners< Me'orandu', pp. ,@3,*% rollo, pp. @@?3@@5.
*/
Respondent<s Me'orandu', p. -5% id. at @-,.
*,
Rule B5 1Foreclosure of Real state Mort"a"e2, FSec. @. Sale of 'ort"a"ed propert#% effect. 33
; ; ; Such sale shall not affect the ri"hts of persons holdin" prior encu'brances upon the
propert# or a part thereof, and $hen confir'ed b# an order of the court, also upon 'otion, it
shall operate to divest the ri"hts in the propert# of all the parties to the action and to vest their
ri"hts in the purchaser, sub>ect to such ri"hts of rede'ption as 'a# be allo$ed b# la$.F See
=i'pin v. Inter'ediate 0ppellate !ourt, -*5 Phil. @,5, @-+3@-B 1,6552.
*-
0n 0ct to Re"ulate the Sale of Propert# under Special Po$ers Inserted in or 0nne;ed to
Real3state Mort"a"es.
*@
Petitioners< Me'orandu', p. ,*% rollo, p. @@5.
**
Id.
*+
Respondent<s Me'orandu', pp. -B3-?% rollo, pp. @,63@-/.
*B
Pena, Re"istration of =and Titles and Deeds 1-//5 ed.2, p. @+,.
*?
On" v. Roban =endin" !orporation, 4.R. No. ,?-+6-, .ul# 6, -//5, ++? S!R0 +,B, +-*.
'phasis supplied.
*5
Petitioners< Me'orandu', pp. -*3-+% rollo, pp. @@63@*/.
*6
!ivil !ode, 0rticle ,,@6. 0ctions prescribe b# the 'ere lapse of ti'e fi;ed b# la$.
+/
!ivil !ode, 0rticle ,,*6. 0ll other actions $hose periods are not fi;ed in this !ode or in
other la$s 'ust be brou"ht $ithin five #ears fro' the ti'e the ri"ht of action accrues.
+,
!ivil !ode, 0rticle ,,+/. The ti'e for prescription for all (inds of actions, $hen there is no
special provision $hich ordains other$ise, shall be counted fro' the da# the# 'a# be brou"ht.
+-
Petitioners< Me'orandu', pp. -+3-B% rollo, pp. @*63@+/.
+@
Respondent<s Me'orandu', pp. -*3-+% id. at @,?3@,5.
+*
Spouses Paderes v. !ourt of 0ppeals, +/- Phil. ?B, 6? 1-//+2, citin" Rodil v. .ud"e
)enedicto, ,5* Phil. ,/5 1,65/2.
++
Metropolitan )an( and Trust !o. v. Santos, 4.R. No. ,+?5B?, Dece'ber ,+, -//6, B/5
S!R0 ---, -@*.
+B
+/- Phil. B5/ 1-//+2.
+?
Id. at B563B6,.
+5
Metropolitan )an( and Trust !o. v. Santos, supra note ++ at -@B, citin" 0ncheta v.
Metropolitan )an( and Trust !o'pan#, Inc., +/? Phil. ,B, 1-//+2.
+6
Metropolitan )an( and Trust !o. v. )ance, G.R. No. 164280, !pr.5 30, 2008, 553 SCR!
504, 5152516. E,phas.s supp5.e$.