Primary Holding

The petition is denied because the case was rendered moot and academic by the full implementation of the writ of possession, and the issuance of the ex parte writ of possession did not violate the petitioner's right to due process.

Background

The dispute originated from a sale of properties by Spouses Trajano to Madriaga, Sr., followed by complications involving a mortgage with Asia Trust Bank, an execution sale in favor of Madriaga, Sr., and a subsequent mortgage with China Bank that led to foreclosure.

Facts

• 1. Spouses Trajano initially agreed to sell two properties to Cesar Madriaga, Sr. They later mortgaged the same properties to China Bank after failing to deliver the titles to Madriaga, Sr., who then won the properties in an execution sale following a specific performance suit. China Bank foreclosed on its mortgage and sought a writ of possession, which Madriaga, Sr. opposed.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The writ of possession was directed only against Spouses Trajano, not Madriaga, Sr.
• 2. Madriaga, Sr. obtained titles through an execution sale, not a voluntary transaction.
• 3. China Bank's titles are void due to a void mortgage.
• 4. China Bank failed to investigate Spouses Trajano's titles, which had a lis pendens annotation.
• 5. The ex parte writ of possession is null and void due to lack of due process.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. N/A (China Bank's arguments are reflected in the lower court decisions that they were entitled to the writ of possession as a matter of right following the foreclosure and consolidation of title.)

Issues

• 1. Whether the satisfaction of the writ of possession rendered the case moot.
• 2. Whether the issuance of the ex parte writ of possession violated Madriaga, Sr.'s right to due process.
• 3. Whether Madriaga, Sr. was a third party holding the property adversely to Spouses Trajano.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court held that the case was moot because the writ of possession had already been satisfied.
• 2. The Court ruled that the ex parte nature of the writ of possession does not violate due process because it is a summary proceeding, and Madriaga, Sr. had opportunities to present his side.
• 3. The Court found that Madriaga, Sr.'s possession was not adverse to Spouses Trajano, as it stemmed from a prior agreement with them.

Doctrines

• 1. Mootness: A case ceases to present a justiciable controversy when there is no more live subject of controversy.
• 2. Ex Parte Writ of Possession: A summary proceeding where relief is granted without affording the person against whom the relief is sought the opportunity to be heard; does not violate due process because it doesn't bar a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale.
• 3. Ministerial Duty: The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser after consolidation of ownership is a ministerial function of the RTC.
• 4. Third-Party Adverse Possession: The exception to the ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession where a third party is holding the property adversely to the mortgagor.

Precedents Cited

• 1. Sps. de Vera v. Hon. Agloro: Used to support the doctrine that courts decline jurisdiction on the ground of mootness.
• 2. Suplico v. National Economic and Development Authority: Used to define judicial power as presupposing actual controversies.
• 3. Osmeña III v. Social Security System of the Philippines: Used regarding exceptions to the rule on mootness.
• 4. Sps. Ong v. Court of Appeals: Used to explain the nature of an ex parte motion for a writ of possession.
• 5. Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals: Used to emphasize that an extrajudicial foreclosure is not strictly a judicial proceeding.
• 6. Fernandez v. Espinoza: Used to explain the ex parte and summary nature of a petition for a writ of possession.
• 7. Sagarbarria v. Philippine Business Bank: Used to support that no notice is needed to be served upon persons interested in the subject property.
• 8. Carlos v. Court of Appeals: Used to support that the ex parte nature of the proceeding does not deny due process to the petitioners.
• 9. Dayrit v. Phil. Bank of Communications: Used to support that when a party has been afforded opportunity to present his side, he cannot feign denial of due process.
• 10. Idolor v. Court of Appeals: Used regarding the right of the owner to the possession of a property is an essential attribute of ownership.
• 11. Samson v. Rivera: Used regarding that in extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner when no redemption is made.
• 12. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Santos: Used to support that after consolidation of ownership and issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the purchaser, he is entitled to possession of the property as a matter of right under Section 7, and its issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial function.
• 13. IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corp. v. Nera: Used regarding Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given.
• 14. China Banking Corporation v. Lozada: Used regarding the possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor.
• 15. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc.: Used to discuss the meaning of a "third-party who is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor".

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Act 3135, Section 7: Governs possession during the redemption period in extrajudicial foreclosures.
• 2. Act 4118: Amends Act 3135.
• 3. Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 33: Concerns the deed and possession to be given at the expiration of the redemption period.
• 4. Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 428-430: Provides for the right to ownership.