470
470
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
471
472
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
AssailedinthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1under
Rule45ortheRulesofCourtistheDecision2oftheCourtof
Appeals (CA) dated January 10, 2007 in CAG.R. CV No.
86287 which affirmed the Order3 of the Regional Trial
Court(RTC)ofCalambaCity,Branch35,datedSeptember
16, 2005 in SLRC Case No. 25282004C granting an ex
partepetitionfortheissuanceofwritofpossession.Likewise
assailed is the CA Resolution4 dated June 6, 2007 which
deniedtheMotionforReconsideration5ofthesaidassailed
Decision.
Factual Antecedents
SpousesCharlieandOfeliaFortaleza(spousesFortaleza)
obtainedaloanfromspousesRolandoandAmparoLapitan
(creditors) in the amount of P1.2 million subject to 34%
interestper annum.Assecurity,spousesFortalezaexecuted
onJanuary28,1998aDeedofRealEstateMortgage6over
their
_______________
1Rollo,pp.1142.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 337346; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R.
GarciaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesJosefinaGuevaraSalonga
andVicenteQ.Roxas.
3Rollo,pp.8589;pennedbyJudgeRomeoC.deLeon.
4CARollo,pp.388389.
5Id.,atpp.349368.
6Rollo,pp.166167.RealEstateMortgage:
That the MORTGAGORS hereby acknowledge being indebted unto
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
473
474
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
Lapitanexecutedanaffidavitofconsolidationofownership
onNovember20,2003andcausedthecancellationofTCT
No.T412512andtheregistrationofthesubjectpropertyin
their names under TCT No. T53594510 on February 4,
2004. Despite the foregoing, the spouses Fortaleza refused
spousesLapitansformaldemand11tovacateandsurrender
possessionofthesubjectproperty.
Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court
On August 27, 2004, spouses Lapitan filed an ex parte
petitionfortheissuanceofwritofpossessionwithBranch35
of the RTC of Calamba City docketed as SLRC Case No.
25282004C.12 As new registered owners of the subject
property,spousesLapitanclaimedthattheywereentitledto
its possession pursuant to Section 7 of Act No. 3135,13 as
amendedbyActNo.4118.
In their opposition,14 spouses Fortaleza questioned the
validityoftherealestatemortgageandtheforeclosuresale.
They argued that the mortgage was void because the
creditorsbloatedtheprincipalamountbytheimpositionof
exorbitant interest. Spouses Fortaleza added that the
foreclosureproceedingwasinvalidfornoncompliancewith
thepostingrequirement.
Later,forrepeatedfailureofspousesFortalezatoappear
at the scheduled hearings, the RTC allowed spouses
Lapitantopresentevidenceex parte.
_______________
10 Id.,atp.157.
11DemandLetterdatedAugust17,2004,id.,atp.168.
12Id.,atpp.5761.
13 An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers
Inserted In or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages. Approved March 6,
1924.
14Rollo,pp.6368.
475
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
475
SpousesFortalezamovedforreconsideration,16claiming
thatthesubjectpropertyistheirfamilyhomeandisexempt
from foreclosure sale. On October 11, 2005, however, the
RTCissuedanOrder17 denying their motion. Accordingly,
thebranchclerkofcourtissuedtheWritofPossession18and
the sheriff served the corresponding Notice to Vacate19
againstspousesFortaleza.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
Dissatisfied, spouses Fortaleza elevated the case to the
CAviaRule41oftheRulesofCourtdocketedasCAG.R.
CV No. 86287. With the perfection of an appeal, the RTC
heldinabeyancetheimplementationofthewrit.20Afterthe
parties
_______________
15Id.,atpp.8889.
16 See Motion for Reconsideration dated September 19, 2005, id., at
pp.9093.
17Id.,atpp.106108.
18Id.,atpp.109110.
19Id.,atp.111.
20SeeOrderdatedOctober26,2005,id.,atp.113.
476
476
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
InaffirmingtherulingoftheRTC,theCAstressedthat
any question regarding the regularity and validity of the
mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be raised as a
justification for opposing the issuance of the writ of
possession since the proceedings is ex parte and non
litigious. Moreover, until the foreclosure sale is annulled,
theissuanceofthewritofpossessionisministerial.
Issues
UnsuccessfulwiththeirquesttohavetheCAreconsider
itsDecision,23spousesFortalezafiledthispetitionforreview
oncertiorari24raisingthefollowingerrors:
I
WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
VIOLATEDTHETWO(2)RAFFLERULEPRESCRIBEDBYAND
LONG ESTABLISHED UNDER THE REVISED INTERNAL
RULESOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSWHENITIMMEDIATELY
RENDERED THE ASSAILED DECISION BARELY AFTER THE
SUBMISSIONOFTHEPARTIESBRIEFS.INSODOING,THE
_______________
21CARollo,pp.337346.
22Id.,atp.345.
23SeeResolutiondatedJune6,2007,id.,atpp.388389.
24Rollo,pp.1142.
477
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
477
First,spousesFortalezapointoutthattheCAviolatedits
own2002InternalRulesofProcedurewhenitdecidedthe
casewithoutpassingthetworafflesystem.Theyclaimthat
thejusticeassignedinthecompletionstagealsodecidedthe
case on the merits. This procedural shortcut, according to
spouses Fortaleza, evinces the appellate courts bias and
prejudgmentinfavorofthespousesLapitan.
_______________
25Id.,atpp.236237.
478
478
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
479
480
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
declaring the case submitted for decision.32 (Emphasis
supplied.)
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
481
482
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
483
Consequently,thepurchaser,whohasarighttopossessionafter
theexpirationoftheredemptionperiod,becomestheabsoluteowner
of the property when no redemption is made. x x x The purchaser
can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of
ownershipinhisnameandtheissuancetohimofanewTCT.After
consolidation of title in the purchasers name for failure of the
mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchasers right to
possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed owner. At
that point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper
application and proof of title becomes merely a ministerial
function. Effectively, the court cannot exercise its
discretion.(Emphasisintheoriginal.)
484
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
requested,butnotlaterthanthirtydaysafterthepurchaserwasgiven
possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of
possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him,
because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in
accordance with the provisions hereof, and the court shall take
cognizance of this petition in accordance with the summary procedure
provided for in section one hundred and twelve of Act Numbered Four
hundred and ninetysix; and if it finds the complaint of the debtor
justified,itshalldisposeinhisfavorofallorpartofthebondfurnished
bythepersonwhoobtainedpossession.Eitherofthepartiesmayappeal
from the order of the judge in accordance with section fourteen of Act
NumberedFourhundredandninetysix;but
485
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
485
486
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan
VOL.678,AUGUST15,2012
487
Castro,***
Bersamin
and
488
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Fortaleza vs. Lapitan