View full case

METROPOLITAN BANK v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS

FACTS:

Respondent Manfred Jacob De Koning obtained a loan from Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) in the amount of P2,019,000.00. To secure the loan, De Koning executed a real estate mortgage over a condominium unit in Makati City. Due to De Koning's failure to pay the loan, Metrobank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against the mortgage. Metrobank became the highest bidder at the public auction and obtained a Certificate of Sale for the condominium unit. They registered the Certificate of Sale with the Registry of Deeds. The redemption period expired without De Koning redeeming the property. As a result, Metrobank demanded the turnover of possession. However, when De Koning refused, Metrobank filed a petition for a writ of possession with the RTC Makati. During the ex parte hearing, De Koning's counsel appeared and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Metrobank's petition violated the rule on forum shopping. The RTC agreed and dismissed Metrobank's petition, and the CA affirmed the dismissal. Metrobank filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising several issues.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Metrobank's petition for certiorari is proper.

  2. Whether the RTC decision dismissing Metrobank's petition was patently erroneous and violated existing jurisprudence.

  3. Whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by the private respondent is a motion or a petition.

  4. Whether the private respondent is required to file a certification against forum shopping in the petition for a writ of possession.

  5. Whether or not the immediate issuance of a writ of possession is required upon the filing of a motion and the approval of the corresponding bond.

RULING:

  1. Metrobank's petition for certiorari is proper. While under normal circumstances, Metrobank should have filed an appeal, the exigencies of the case may render ordinary methods of appeal inadequate. The petition for certiorari may still be issued in situations where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy, where the orders were issued in excess of or without jurisdiction, for certain special considerations such as public welfare or public policy, where the order is a patent nullity, and where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations.

  2. The RTC decision dismissing Metrobank's petition was patently erroneous and violated existing jurisprudence. Grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. In this case, the RTC decision contravened existing jurisprudence and contained a patent legal error.

  3. The petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by the private respondent is considered a motion. The distinction between a motion and a petition is not based on its form or title, but on its purpose. A motion is filed to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case, while a petition initiates new litigation. In this case, the petition for a writ of possession is a mere incident in the registration proceeding, and therefore, can be filed in the form of an ex parte motion.

  4. A certification against forum shopping is not required in a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135. Since the petition is not an initiatory pleading, the requirement of a certification against forum shopping does not apply. The claims made in the petition are not of an initiatory character.

  5. The Court held that the immediate issuance of a writ of possession is required upon the filing of a motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the purchaser to have possession of the foreclosed property without delay, based on their right of ownership. A trial that would cause delay is not contemplated by the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari and an appeal are mutually exclusive remedies.

  • A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It may be issued in land registration proceedings, judicial foreclosure, and extrajudicial foreclosure.

  • The procedure for obtaining a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure cases is found in Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. This provision allows the purchaser to petition the court for possession during the redemption period, upon filing a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period without the need for a bond. The petition for a writ of possession is filed in the form of an ex parte motion.

  • The right to possess a property follows the right of ownership. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a matter of right, and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.

  • A petition for a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is considered a motion, not an initiatory pleading. Therefore, a certification against forum shopping is not required in such a petition.

  • In ex parte proceedings, no intervention is allowed. Ex parte proceedings are those taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, without notice to or contestation by any person adversely interested.

  • The immediate issuance of a writ of possession is required upon the filing of a motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, as mandated by Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135.

  • The purpose of the immediate issuance of a writ of possession is to allow the purchaser to have possession of the foreclosed property without delay, based on their right of ownership.