FACTS:

In November 1994, petitioners obtained a loan of P3,200,000 from private respondent Philippine Bank of Communication. To secure the loan, petitioners executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 22990. In August 1997, petitioners executed an Amendment to the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage increasing the loan amount to P5,000,000.

Due to the failure of petitioners to pay the full amount of the outstanding loan, private respondent applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. Upon receiving notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, petitioners filed a petition to annul the sale and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO). The petition for annulment was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

The extrajudicial foreclosure sale did not push through as scheduled because the trial court granted petitioners' prayer for TRO. The TRO was later lifted and the foreclosure sale was reset. Private respondent emerged as the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, and a certificate of sale was executed on June 4, 2002. On June 7, 2002, the certificate of sale was annotated on TCT No. 22990.

After the one-year redemption period, private respondent filed an affidavit of consolidation to consolidate its ownership and title to the foreclosed property. The Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 22990 and issued TCT No. 251835 in the name of private respondent.

Private respondent applied for a writ of possession of the foreclosed property, which petitioners opposed. The trial court granted private respondent's motion for a declaration of general default and allowed private respondent to present evidence ex parte. The trial court also denied petitioners' notice of appeal. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was subsequently dismissed. The appellate court also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the writ of possession was properly issued despite the pendency of a case questioning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

2. Whether the writ of possession was properly issued despite the fact that petitioners were declared in default in the proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no violation of the rule against forum shopping since the application for the issuance of a writ of possession is not affected by a pending case questioning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

2. The Court of Appeals held that a proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is ex parte in nature. As such, petitioners' right to due process was not violated even if they were not given a chance to file their opposition.

PRINCIPLES:

• A writ of possession can be properly issued despite the pendency of a case questioning the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

• Proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession are ex parte in nature.