G.R. No. 153951. July 29, 2005.

*
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION,
SPOUSES AMADO A. SANAO and SOLEDAD F. SANAO and SPOUSES WILLIAM (Willy) F.
SANAO and HELEN SANAO, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Writs of Possession; Instances When Issued; Words and Phrases; A writ of possession
is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of
land, commanding the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the
person entitled under the judgment.A writ of possession is a writ of execution
employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. It commands the
sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the person entitled under the
judgment. A writ of possession may be issued under the following instances: (1) in
land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act 496; (2) in a judicial
foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no
third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) in an
extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135,
as amended by Act No. 4118; and (4) in execution sales (last paragraph of Section
33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).
Same; Mortgages; Real Estate Mortgage; Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage; The
purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the
redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the
corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered
by a Torrens title; A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of
ownership of the property in the name of the purchaser, in which case the bond
required in Section 7 of Act No. 3131 is no longer necessary.The purchaser in a
foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by
filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding
registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered by a Torrens
title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the
law also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of
possession. A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of ownership
of the property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled that the buyer in a
foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not
redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of sale. As such, he is
entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance of a new transfer
certificate of title. In such a case, the bond required in Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is
no longer necessary. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right of the
purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of title, the
issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
Same; Same; Same; Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale,
as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be determined in a
subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act
No. 4118such question is not to be raised as a justification for opposing the
issuance of the writ of possession.Any question regarding the regularity and
validity of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be

determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as

amended by Act No. 4118. Such question is not to be raised as a justification for
opposing the issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the
proceeding is ex parte. The law is clear that the purchaser must first be placed in
possession. If the trial court later finds merit in the petition to set aside the writ of
possession, it shall dispose the bond furnished by the purchaser in favor of the
mortgagor. Thereafter, either party may appeal from the order of the judge. The
rationale for the mandate is to allow the purchaser to have possession of the
foreclosed property without delay, such possession being founded on his right of
ownership.
Same; Same; Same; The duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is
ministerialsuch issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion
and the approval of the corresponding bond.It has been consistently held that the
duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as
a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the
corresponding bond. The court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment.
The judge issuing the order following these express provisions of law cannot be
charged with having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. If
only to stress the writs ministerial character, we have, in previous cases, disallowed
injunction to prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that the issuance of the
same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the
foreclosure itself.
Same; Same; Same; The judge to whom an application for a writ of possession is
filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure
in the issuance of the writ of possession, no discretion is left to the trial court.
The Court of Appeals relied on the case of Cometa v. Intermediate Appellate Court
in holding that for a writ of possession to be validly issued . . . . in an extrajudicial
foreclosure proceeding, all the procedural requirements should be complied with.
Any flaw afflicting its stages could affect the validity of its issuance. The Court of
Appeals reproached the RTC of Pili for granting the writ despite the existence of
these alleged procedural lapses. This was erroneous. The judge to whom an
application for writ of possession is filed need not look into the validity of the
mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. In the issuance of a writ of possession,
no discretion is left to the trial court. Any question regarding the cancellation of the
writ or in respect of the validity and regularity of the public sale should be
determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135.
Same; Same; Same; Certiorari; The Court of Appeals should not rule on factual
issues on which the trial court has yet to make any finding; A review of factual
matters is not proper in a petition for certiorari.The question of the validity of the
foreclosure proceed ings can be threshed out in Civil Case No. RTC 2000-00074,
pending before the RTC of Naga City, Branch 61, which was filed by respondents
before PNB had filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. The Court of
Appeals should not have ruled on factual issues on which the RTC of Naga had yet
to make any finding. Besides, a review of such factual matters is not proper in a
petition for certiorari.

Same; Same; Same; The pendency of a case for annulment of the foreclosure
proceedings is not a bar to the issuance of a writ of possession.It is worthy of note
that the pendency of the case for annulment of the foreclosure proceedings is not a
bar to the issuance of the writ of possession. Pending such proceedings whose
subject is the validity of the foreclosure proceedings, the purchaser in a foreclosure
sale is entitled to the possession of property. Until such time the foreclosure sale is
annulled, the issuance of the writ of possession is ministerial on the part of the RTC
of Pili.
Same; Same; Same; The declaration in Cometa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 151
SCRA 563 (1987), that the issuance of a writ of possession is dependent on the valid
execution of the procedural stages preceding it does not contemplate writs of
possession available in extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate mortgages under
Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.The Court of Appeals
reliance on the case of Cometa is misplaced. The cited case involved the issuance of
a writ of possession following an execution sale. The declaration therein that the
issuance of said writ is dependent on the valid execution of the procedural stages
preceding it does not contemplate writs of possession available in extrajudicial
foreclosures of real estate mortgages under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended
by Act No. 4118.
Same; Same; Same; The soundness of an order granting the writ of possession is a
matter of judgment with respect to which the remedy is ordinary appeal instead of a
petition for certiorari.Considering that the RTC of Pili issued the writ of possession
in compliance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended, it cannot be
charged with having acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. Absent grave abuse of discretion, respondents should have filed an
ordinary appeal instead of a petition for certiorari. The soundness of the order
granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment with respect to which the
remedy is ordinary appeal. An error of judgment committed by a court in the
exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of discretion.
Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, while those of jurisdiction are
reviewable by certiorari.
Actions; Forum Shopping; Pleadings and Practice; A party is not obligated to disclose
the existence of another case pending before the Court of Appeals where it was not
initiated by it and, more importantly, the subject matter and the properties involved
therein are altogether different; The strict and rigid application of the rules of
procedure which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice must always be avoided; The power of the Supreme
Court to except a particular case from its rules whenever the purposes of justice
require it cannot be questioned.Although belatedly filed, the Resolution of the PNB
Board amply demonstrates Mrs. Domitila A. Amons authority to sign and verify the
instant petition. PNB likewise was not obligated to disclose the alluded case pending
before the Court of Appeals as it was not initiated by the bank and, more
importantly, the subject matter and the properties involved therein are altogether
different. It is well to remember at this point that rules of procedure are but mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid

application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. In proper cases, procedural
rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice. And the
power of the Court to except a particular case from its rules whenever the purposes
of justice require it cannot be questioned. [Philippine National Bank vs. Sanao
Marketing Corporation, 465 SCRA 287(2005)]

DECISION
TINGA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, wherein petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) seeks the review of
the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals Thirteenth Division in C.A.
G.R. SP No. 63162. The assailed Decision nullified two orders of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32, which
respectively granted PNBs petition for issuance of a writ of possession over
seven (7) parcels of land and directed the execution pending appeal of such
writ of possession.
[1]

[2]

[3]

The antecedents are as follows:

In July 1997, Sanao Marketing Corporation, the spouses Amado A. Sanao
and Soledad F. Sanao and the spouses William (Willy) F. Sanao and Helen
Sanao (all respondents herein), as joint and solidary debtors, obtained a loan
in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (P150,000,000.00) from
PNB secured by a real estate mortgage of several parcels of land situated in
the municipalities of Pili, Tigaon and Camaligan, all of Camarines Sur, and
Naga City. The contract expressly provided that the mortgage shall be
governed by the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended. The pertinent
portions of said contract provide that:
[4]

[5]

....
F. FORECLOSURE, POWER OF ATTORNEY, RECEIVERSHIP
If at any time the Mortgagors fail or refuse to pay the obligation herein secured, or
any of the amortization of such indebtedness when due, or to comply with any of the
conditions and stipulations herein agreed, or shall during the time this mortgage is in
force, institute insolvency proceedings or be involuntarily declared insolvent, or shall
use the proceeds of this loan for purposes other than those specified herein, or if the

mortgage cannot be recorded in or the Mortgagors fail to register the same with the
corresponding Registry of Deeds, then all the obligations of the Mortgagors secured
by this mortgage and all the amortization thereof shall immediately become due,
payable and defaulted and the Mortgagee may immediately foreclose this mortgage
judicially in accordance with the Rules of Court, or extrajudicially in accordance with
Act No. 3135, as amended, and P.D. 385. For the purpose of extrajudicial foreclosure,
the Mortgagors hereby appoint the Mortgagee their Attorney-in-Fact to sell the
properties mortgaged under Act No. 3135, as amended, to sign all documents and
perform any act requisite and necessary to accomplish said purpose and to appoint its
substitute as Attorney-in-Fact with the same powers as above specified. In case of
judicial foreclosure, the Mortgagors hereby consent to the appointment of the
Mortgagee or of any of its employees as receiver, without any bond, to take charge of
the mortgaged properties at once, and to hold possession of the same and the rents,
benefits and profits derived from the mortgaged properties before the sale, less costs
and expenses of the receivership. . . .
[6]

For failure of respondents to fully pay the loan upon its maturity, PNB
caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage through a certain Atty.
Marvel C. Clavecilla (Atty. Clavecilla), a notary public for and in the City of
Naga. The Notice of Extra-Judicial Foreclosure Sale announced that the sale
of 13 titles consisting of 14 parcels of land located in Camarines Sur and
Naga City is scheduled on 22 March 1999 at nine oclock in the morning or
soon thereafter, at the entrance of the Municipal Court of Pili, Camarines Sur.
This notice was published in the 7, 14 and 21 February 1999 issues of
the Vox Bikol- a weekly tabloid published every Sunday and circulated in the
Bicol region and continents with Bicol communities.
[7]

Thereafter, Atty. Clavecilla executed a Provisional Certificate of

Sale dated 26 April 1999 certifying that on the 22 nd day of March 1999, at
exactly ten oclock in the morning, he sold at a public auction at the lobby/main
entrance of the Regional Trial Court, Hall of Justice, Naga City the mortgaged
properties to PNB for Two Hundred Thirteen Million One Hundred Sixty-Two
Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty- Seven and Fifty Centavos
(P213,162,787.50), which amount the latter considered as payment pro
tanto of petitioners loan. This Provisional Certificate of Sale was registered
with the Registry of Deeds of Camarines Sur on 3 May 1999 and with the
Registry of Deeds of Naga City on 16 June 1999 for the properties
respectively covered by their registries.
[8]

[9]

[10]

On 26 April 2000, respondents Amado A. Sanao and Sanao Marketing

Corporation filed a complaint with the RTC of Naga City, Branch 61, against
PNB, the Register of Deeds of the City of Naga and the Province of
Camarines Sur, and Atty. Clavecilla, for the court to declare the Provisional
Certificate of Sale and the auction and foreclosure proceedings null and void.
[11]

[12]

On 11 August 2000, PNB filed with the RTC of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch
32, a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, docketed therein as
Spec. Proc. P-1182, over the properties located in Pili that are covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 21448, 24221, 14133, 15218, 15489, 13856,
15216.
[13]

To the petition, respondents Amado A. Sanao and Sanao Marketing

Corporation interposed an answer in opposition, with special and affirmative
defenses.
[14]

PNB countered with its comments/reply to opposition.

[16]

[15]

On 24 November 2000, the RTC of Pili issued its first assailed order,
granting the writ of possession prayed for by PNB.

Amado A. Sanao and Sanao Marketing Corporation filed a Motion for

Reconsideration w/ Opposition to the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal,
which was denied per the second assailed order dated 24 January 2001 of
the RTC of Pili.
[17]

[18]

[19]

Respondents then filed a Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC of Pili in the issuance of the two assailed
orders. The Petition likewise prayed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order which the Court of Appeals granted on 15 February 2001,
enjoining the RTC of Pili and PNB from implementing the challenged orders.
[20]

In their Memorandum, respondents pointed out that the PNB had

allegedly failed to submit the application for extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage to the proper clerk of court after payment of the filing fee, in
contravention of Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3 and Administrative
Circular No. 3-98. In addition, respondents averred that the foreclosure sale
was null and void as it was done at the lobby/main entrance of the RTC Hall of
[21]

Justice, Naga City and not at the entrance of the Municipal Trial Court of Pili,
Camarines Sur as published.
[22]

PNB, on the other hand, posited that the invoked administrative order is
not applicable as extrajudicial proceedings conducted by a notary public, as in
the case at bar, do not fall within the contemplation of the directive.
[23]

With regard to the variance of the venues of the auction sale as published
in Vox Bikol and as recorded in the Provisional Certificate of Sale, PNB
asserted that there was no violation of Act No. 3135 or of the terms of the
real estate mortgage contract, as the sale of the mortgaged properties
located in Camarines Sur were held in Naga City which is well within the
territorial jurisdiction of said province.
[24]

[25]

[26]

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of herein respondents. The Court of

Appeals rendered a litany of lapses that the notary public committed in the
conduct of the foreclosure proceedings which in its estimation had effectively
undermined the soundness of the foreclosure sale. Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals held that theProvisional Certificate of Sale, upon which the issuance
of the writ of possession was based, is fatally infirm, and that consequently,
the writ of possession was not validly issued as the procedural requirements
for its issuance were not satisfied.
[27]

[28]

Thus, the Court of Appeals declared null and void the two assailed orders
of the RTC of Pili for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
[29]

Aggrieved by the Decision, PNB filed the instant petition, arguing in the
main that in nullifying the orders of the RTC of Pili, the Court of Appeals
departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as the
issuance of writs of possession is purely ministerial on the part of the trial
court.
[30]

In their comment, respondents point out that the instant petition should
not be given due course as it is not sufficient in form and substance.
Respondents proffered the following grounds, thus: (1) there was no special of
attorney or Board Resolution or Secretarys Certificate attached to the petition
which could serve as basis for the petitioners signatory Domitila A. Amon to
verify or attest to the truth of the allegations contained therein, in violation of
existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter; (2) petitioners failed to move
[31]

for a reconsideration of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals; (3)

petitioners failed to disclose another similar case involving the same legal
issues now pending in the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals, docketed
as C.A. G.R. CV No. 73718, which is an appeal from an original petition for
issuance of writ of possession filed by the same petitioner before the RTC of
San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 58; (4) petitioner failed to furnish the
Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals a copy of the petition in C.A. G.R. No.
73718 pending therein, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, which failure could lead to conflicting resolutions, between
two divisions of the Court of Appeals and to the giving of inadequate
information to the Supreme Court; and (5) the petition was only accompanied
by Annexes A, B, C, D and E, which annexes do not satisfy the requirements
laid down in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[32]

Respondents also reiterate that the PNB in the conduct of the extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings did not comply with Administrative Order No. 3 and
Administrative Circular No. 3-98, and that the notice of publication was not
sufficient to justify the execution of the Provisional Certificate of Sale.
[33]

Traversing the alleged procedural errors, PNB in its Reply raise the
following arguments:
[34]

First, Mrs. Domitila A. Amon had authority to sign and verify its petition
under Board Resolution No. 15 dated 8 October 1997, in line with her
authority to prosecute and defend cases for and/or against the bank.
[35]

[36]

Second, there are exceptions to the general rule that a motion for
reconsideration must first be filed before elevating a case to a higher court.
PNB insists that the Decisionof the Court of Appeals is a patent nullity as it
runs counter to the provisions of Act No. 3135 and existing jurisprudence
stating that Administrative Order No. 3 covers judicial foreclosures. As such,
the filing of a motion for reconsideration prior to elevating the case on
certiorari may be dispensed with.
[37]

Lastly, the case which according to respondents is not mentioned in the

certification of non-forum shopping was commenced by respondents
themselves, not PNB, and that the issues similar to those in the instant case
have yet to be raised in respondents appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Moreover, the subject matter and the properties involved in the other case are
altogether different.
[38]

There is merit in the petition.

A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment
to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land
and give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgment.
[39]

A writ of possession may be issued under the following instances: (1)in

land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act 496; (2) in a judicial
foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and
no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) in an
extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No.
3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (4) in execution sales (last
paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).
[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

The present case falls under the third instance. Under Section 7 of Act No.
3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, a writ of possession may be issued either
(1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond, or (2)
after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond. Section 7 of
Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, provides:
[44]

SECTION 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may
petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any
part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period,
furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of
twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made
without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this
Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex partemotion in
the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special
proceedings in case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section
one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property
encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in
accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of court shall, upon the
filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one
hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, and the court
shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the

sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order
immediately.
Under the above-quoted provision, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale
may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex
parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration or
cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered by a Torrens title. Upon
the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law
also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of
possession.
[45]

A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of ownership

of the property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled that the buyer in a
foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is
not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of sale. As
such, he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it any
time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance of
a new transfer certificate of title. In such a case, the bond required in Section
7 of Act No. 3135 is no longer necessary. Possession of the land then
becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper
application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a
ministerial duty of the court. It was held, thus:
[46]

As the purchaser of the properties in the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, the PNCB is
entitled to a writ of possession therefore. The law on extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage provides that a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale may take
possession of the foreclosed property even before the expiration of the redemption
period, provided he furnishes the necessary bond. Possession of the property may be
obtained by filing an ex parte motion with the regional trial court of the province or
place where the property is situated. Upon filing of the motion and the required bond,
it becomes a ministerial duty of the court to order the issuance of a writ of possession
in favor of the purchaser. After the expiration of the one-year period without
redemption being effected by the property owner, the right of the purchaser to the
possession of the foreclosed property becomes absolute. The basis of this right to
possession is the purchasers ownership of the property. Mere filing of an ex
parte motion for the issuance of the writ of possession would suffice, and no bond is
required.
[47]

Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as
the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be determined in a subsequent
proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
4118. Such question is not to be raised as a justification for opposing the
issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding is ex
parte.
[48]

In case it is disputed that there was violation of the mortgage or that the
procedural requirements for the foreclosure sale were not followed, Section 8
of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, provides, to wit:
SECTION 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested,
but not later than thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the
sale be set aside and the writ of possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered
by him, because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accordance
with the provisions hereof, and the court shall take cognizance of this petition in
accordance with the summary procedure provided for in section one hundred and
twelve of Act Number Four hundred and ninety-six; and if it finds the complaint of
the debtor justified, it shall dispose in his favor of all or part of the bond furnished by
the person who obtained possession. Either of the parties may appeal from the order
of the judge in accordance with section fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and
ninety-six; but the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of
the appeal.
The law is clear that the purchaser must first be placed in possession. If
the trial court later finds merit in the petition to set aside the writ of
possession, it shall dispose the bond furnished by the purchaser in favor of
the mortgagor. Thereafter, either party may appeal from the order of the judge.
The rationale for the mandate is to allow the purchaser to have possession of
the foreclosed property without delay, such possession being founded on his
right of ownership.
[49]

It has been consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of
possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course upon the
filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. The
court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment. The judge issuing
the order following these express provisions of law cannot be charged with
having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. If only to
stress the writs ministerial character, we have, in previous cases, disallowed
[50]

[51]

injunction to prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that the issuance of the
same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage or
the foreclosure itself.
[52]

In the case at bar, PNB has sufficiently established its right to the writ of
possession. It presented as documentary exhibits the contract of real estate
mortgage and theProvisional Certificate of Sale on the face of which
appears proof of its registration with the Registry of Deeds in Camarines Sur
on 3 May 1999. There is also no dispute that the lands were not redeemed
within one year from the registration of the Provisional Certificate of Sale. It
should follow, therefore, that PNB has acquired an absolute right, as
purchaser, to the writ of possession. The RTC of Pili had the ministerial duty to
issue that writ, as it did actually, upon mere motion, conformably to Section 7
of Act No. 3135, as amended.
[53]

[54]

[55]

However on certiorari, the Court of Appeals declared null and void the
orders of the RTC of Pili granting the writ of possession and denying
respondents motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals exhaustively
discussed the reasons for such a declaration, noting the procedural errors of
PNB in the conduct of the foreclosure proceedings which allegedly rendered
the foreclosure sale and the Provisional Certificate of Sale of doubtful validity.
The Court of Appeals relied on the case of Cometa v. Intermediate
Appellate Court in holding that for a writ of possession to be validly issued . in
an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding, all the procedural requirements
should be complied with. Any flaw afflicting its stages could affect the validity
of its issuance. The Court of Appeals reproached the RTC of Pili Sur for
granting the writ despite the existence of these alleged procedural lapses.
[56]

[57]

This was erroneous. The judge to whom an application for writ of

possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the
manner of its foreclosure. In the issuance of a writ of possession, no
discretion is left to the trial court. Any question regarding the cancellation of
the writ or in respect of the validity and regularity of the public sale should be
determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No.
3135.
[58]

In fact, the question of the validity of the foreclosure proceedings can be

threshed out in Civil Case No. RTC 2000-00074, pending before the RTC of

Naga City, Branch 61, which was filed by respondents before PNB had filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals should
not have ruled on factual issues on which the RTC of Naga had yet to make
any finding. Besides, a review of such factual matters is not proper in a
petition for certiorari.
Having noted the foregoing, the Court dispenses with the need to discuss
the soundness of the foreclosure proceedings, the authenticity of
the Provisional Certificate of Sale, and the applicability of Supreme Court
Administrative Order No. 3 and Administrative Circular No. 3-98. A review of
the foregoing matters properly lies within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Naga
City, Branch 61.
It is worthy of note that the pendency of the case for annulment of the
foreclosure proceedings is not a bar to the issuance of the writ of possession.
Pending such proceedings whose subject is the validity of the foreclosure
proceedings, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession
of property. Until such time the foreclosure sale is annulled, the issuance of
the writ of possession is ministerial on the part of the RTC of Pili.
[59]

[60]

In addition, the Court of Appeals reliance on the case of Cometa is

misplaced. The cited case involved the issuance of a writ of possession
following an execution sale. The declaration therein that the issuance of said
writ is dependent on the valid execution of the procedural stages preceding it
does not contemplate writs of possession available in extrajudicial
foreclosures of real estate mortgages under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
amended by Act No. 4118.
[61]

Considering that the RTC of Pili issued the writ of possession in

compliance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended, it cannot be
charged with having acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. Absent grave abuse of discretion, respondents should have filed an
ordinary appeal instead of a petition for certiorari. The soundness of the order
granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment with respect to which
the remedy is ordinary appeal. An error of judgment committed by a court in
the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of
discretion. Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, while those of
jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari.
[62]

Palpably, the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted

respondents petition for certiorari and set aside the orders dated 24
November 2000 and 24 January 2001 of the RTC of Pili in Spec. Proc No. P1182, and also when it made a determination as to the validity of the
foreclosure proceedings in clear violation of Act No. 3135. The contention,
therefore, that the Court should not entertain the instant petition until a motion
for reconsideration has been filed may not hold water where the proceeding in
which the error occurred is a patent nullity. Thus, we hold that a motion for
reconsideration may be dispensed with in the instant case.
[63]

Anent the other procedural grounds for the denial of the instant petition,
suffice it to say that PNBs rejoinder has sufficiently refuted respondents
assertions. We find and so hold that there was substantial compliance with the
procedural requirements of the Court.
Although belatedly filed, the Resolution of the PNB Board amply
demonstrates Mrs. Domitila A. Amons authority to sign and verify the instant
petition. PNB likewise was not obligated to disclose the alluded case pending
before the Court of Appeals as it was not initiated by the bank and, more
importantly, the subject matter and the properties involved therein are
altogether different. It is well to remember at this point that rules of procedure
are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict
and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. In proper
cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of
substantial justice. And the power of the Court to except a particular case
from its rules whenever the purposes of justice require it cannot be
questioned.
[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the

Court of Appeals dated 11 June 2002 in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 63162 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The orders dated 24 November 2000 and 24
January 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32 in
Spec. Pro. No. P-1182 directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor
of PNB are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-M