FACTS:

The case involves a credit line extended by respondent Equitable PCI Bank to Camden Industries, Inc. (CII). Petitioner GC Dalton Industries, Inc. executed a third-party mortgage of its properties as security for CII's loans. CII failed to pay its obligations, resulting in respondent filing a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of petitioner's properties. The properties were then sold at a public auction and certificates of sale were issued in respondent's favor. Respondent filed for the issuance of a writ of possession. Meanwhile, CII filed an action asserting that it had already paid its obligation in full. The Pasig RTC rendered a decision in favor of CII, ordering respondent to return the "overpayment" and compensate for lost profits. Respondent filed a notice of appeal, but it was dismissed due to failure to pay docket fees. Bulacan RTC granted respondent's motion for a writ of possession. Petitioner assailed the Bulacan RTC order in the Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. The SC held that the issuance of a writ of possession is summary and ministerial, thus not requiring a judgment on the merits. The ownership of the properties had already been consolidated in favor of respondent. Petitioner should have availed of the remedy of annulment instead of relying solely on the pending suit in the Pasig RTC. The petition was denied and costs were imposed on petitioner.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of possession despite the pending case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the issuance of the writ of possession. The court held that the issuance of the writ of possession is summary and ministerial and does not require the exercise of discretion by the court. It is not considered a judgment on the merits and therefore does not need to state its factual and legal bases. The court also ruled that the mortgagor loses all legal interest over the foreclosed property after the expiration of the redemption period, and in this case, the redemption period had already expired. The petitioner could have filed a petition to annul the auction sale and cancel the writ of possession within 30 days after respondent was given possession, but failed to do so. The court also emphasized that the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a ground for the refusal to issue a writ of possession.

PRINCIPLES:

• The issuance of a writ of possession is summary and ministerial and is not considered a judgment on the merits.

• The mortgagor loses legal interest over the foreclosed property after the expiration of the redemption period.

• The validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a ground for the refusal to issue a writ of possession.