Espiridion VS Ca

ESPIRIDION VS.
COURT OF APPEALS without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives
FACTS: him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is
discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of
On April 30, 1999, SBDB filed an amended ex-parte petition for issuance of writ of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment. Clearly, the
possession over a parcel of land purchased by SBDB in a public auction held on use of discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are mutually exclusive.
August 26, 1999. The ex-parte petition alleged that petitioners,
spouses Constantino Espiridion and Remedios Espiridion and Where the court acts on a matter that is within its jurisdiction, grave abuse of
spouses Renato Ramos and Erlinda Ramos, mortgaged the subject property to SBDB discretion must be shown to nullify the act. In this case, since the issuance of the writ
as security for a P4,200,000 loan. They failed to comply with the terms and conditions of possession did not involve an exercise of discretion, no abuse of discretion could
of the mortgage, hence, SBDB extrajudicially foreclosed the property. SBDB have been committed by the trial court. Thus, the instant petition for certiorari has no
subsequently acquired the property as the lone bidder in the public auction held on leg to stand on.
August 26, 1997. Petitioners failed to redeem the property within the one-year
redemption period. As a consequence, ownership of the property was consolidated in The fact that no bond was posted by SBDB was also of no consequence. Since
ownership of the property had already been consolidated in the name of the bank,
the name of SBDB. Petitioners anchored their defense on the alleged nullity of the
there was nothing legally questionable in the issuance of the writ of possession even
extrajudicial foreclosure sale. They claimed that SBDB failed to comply with several
if no bond was posted. The posting of a bond as a condition for the issuance of the
requirements of extrajudicial foreclosure: no application for extrajudicial foreclosure writ of possession becomes necessary only if it is applied for within one year from the
was filed with the office of the clerk of court of the RTC of Makati City; the docket fees registration of the sale with the register of deeds, i.e., during the redemption
were not paid and no raffle of the publication of the notice of foreclosure sale was period inasmuch as ownership has not yet vested on the creditor-mortgagee. After
made. the one-year period, however, the mortgagor loses all interest over it.[9] The
purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends after the expiration of the
Trial Court: It declared that it could not rule on the propriety or validity of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption
foreclosure sale and, as such, presumed that the extrajudicial foreclosure sale was is made. Thus, the posting of a bond is no longer needed.
done in a regular manner. It only resolved the issue of SBDBs entitlement to a writ of
possession. Invoking the rule that the purchaser in a foreclosure sale of mortgaged
property is entitled to a writ of possession and that it is ministerial on the court to
issue such writ upon ex-parte petition by the purchaser, the court a
quo granted SBDBs petition.
The petitioners filed a notice of appeal and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
SBDB filed a motion for writ of execution/writ of possession pending appeal which the
appellate court granted in its August 25, 2000 resolution. Petitioners moved for its
reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON CA erred or gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of
execution/possession pending appeal?
HELD: No abuse of discretion may properly be imputed to the appellate court. The
issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial
act. After the consolidation of title in the buyers name for failure of the mortgagor to
redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.[3] Its issuance
to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is merely a ministerial function.
A clear line demarcates a discretionary act from a ministerial one. Thus: The
distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely
ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of
facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,

Espiridion VS Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Espiridion VS Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Espiridion VS Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESPIRIDION VS.

You might also like