Case Digest: BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. HOMOBONO AND LUZDELDIA TARAMPI

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. HOMOBONO AND
LUZDELDIA TARAMPI

574 SCRA 537 (2008)

A writ of possession, unless annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, remains the ministerial duty of the trial court.

Spouses Homobono and Lusdeldia Tarampi (Spouses Tarampi) obtained loans from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), which were secured by real estate mortgages over a parcel of land. Spouses Tarampi failed to comply with their obligation, prompting BPI to institute extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. During the auction, BPI was the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its name. The same was registered and annotated on the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of the said parcel of land.

Since the one-year redemption period expired without Spouses Tarampi redeeming the mortgage, BPI executed an Affidavit of Consolidation. A new TCT was issued in favor of BPI. In the meantime, Spouses Tarampi filed an action for annulment of the real estate mortgages. BPI, on the other hand, filed a Petition for Writ of Possession over the property including all improvements thereon which was granted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. A Notice of Appeal was filed by Spouses Tarampi alleging therein that a writ cannot be issued on the ground that there is a pending action concerning the validity of the mortgages. The RTC ordered the suspension of issuance of writ of possession.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, held that since BPI is now the registered owner of the property, it is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right; and that any question regarding the validity of the mortgages or their foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession after the consolidation of title in the buyer‘s name, following the debtor-mortgagor‘s failure to redeem the mortgages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the writ of possession should be implemented during the pendency of the case for annulment of mortgages

HELD:

In the case at bar, Spouses Tarampi failed to redeem the mortgages within the reglementary period, hence, ownership of the property covered thereby was consolidated in the name of BPI who had in fact been issued a new TCT. Issuance of a writ of possession thus became a ministerial duty of the court.