In Angelo Dwight Penson v. Spouses Melchor and Virginia Maranan, the Supreme Court addressed whether a writ of possession, issued following an extrajudicial foreclosure, could be enforced against a spouse who claimed the mortgage was executed without their consent. The Court ruled that because Angelo Penson was, in fact, a party to the mortgage agreement through a Special Power of Attorney granted to his wife, Jovita Penson, he could not claim to be a third party unaffected by the foreclosure proceedings. This decision reinforces the principle that a writ of possession can be enforced against individuals who, despite not being directly named in the writ, are parties to the underlying mortgage agreement.

Mortgaged Property & Marital Rights: When Does a Spouse Have Recourse?

The case revolves around a property owned by Angelo Dwight Penson and his wife, Jovita Lorna Penson. Jovita, acting purportedly as Angelo’s attorney-in-fact via a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), mortgaged the property to Spouses Melchor and Virginia Maranan to secure a loan. When Jovita failed to meet the obligations of a Compromise Agreement related to the loan, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed, and the Maranans, as the highest bidders, sought a writ of possession. Angelo contested this, claiming the SPA was fraudulent and that, as the owner, he could not be dispossessed through an ex-parte proceeding without his direct involvement. This raised crucial questions about the enforceability of foreclosure actions against spouses and the validity of powers of attorney in mortgage agreements.

The legal framework underpinning this case hinges on the nature of extrajudicial foreclosures and the rights of parties involved. Act No. 3135, which governs extrajudicial foreclosures, provides a mechanism for creditors to recover their loans by selling mortgaged properties outside of court. However, this process must adhere to due process requirements, particularly concerning the rights of third parties. Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is suppletory to Act 3135, states that a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure can be awarded possession unless a third party is holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the issuance of a writ of possession in an extrajudicial foreclosure is typically a ministerial duty of the court. It should be granted as a matter of course once ownership has been consolidated and a new title issued to the purchaser. However, this ministerial duty ceases when a third party is in possession of the property, claiming a right adverse to the debtor or mortgagor, as established in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals. The crux of the matter, therefore, was whether Angelo qualified as such a third party.

The Court found that Angelo was not a third party in this context. The records indicated that Jovita signed the Promissory Note and Deed of Real Estate Mortgage not only on her behalf but also as Angelo’s attorney-in-fact. The Special Power of Attorney granted Jovita the authority to secure loans and offer the conjugal property as collateral. Because Angelo was effectively a party to the loan and mortgage, he could not claim adverse rights as a third party. His right to possess the property stemmed from ownership titles already transferred to the Maranans after the foreclosure sale. This aligns with the doctrine that a writ of possession is enforceable against parties involved in the transactions leading to foreclosure, even if they are not explicitly named in the writ.

Angelo further argued that he could not be ousted from the property through a mere ex-parte petition for a writ of possession, asserting that it violated his right to due process. However, the Court clarified that an ex-parte petition under Act No. 3135 does not allow for a full-blown trial to determine all claims and rights related to the property. While this process cannot summarily eject a true third party with adverse claims, it is applicable when the person contesting the writ was party to the original mortgage agreement. Because Angelo, through the SPA, was deemed a party, the ex-parte writ was enforceable against him.

The Court also addressed Angelo’s challenge to the validity of the SPA. While acknowledging the rebuttable presumption of validity for notarized documents, the Court stated its finding was merely preliminary, intended to determine if an injunctive relief was proper. It would not bind the RTC Branch handling the action for annulment of title where Angelo could still present evidence of forgery. The Court upheld the presumptive validity because the Special Power of Attorney dated July 9, 1992 authorized Jovita to “offer as collateral or security for the said loan any property, real or personal, constituting our conjugal property…”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding that the writ of possession was properly issued and should be enforced. The Court also referred to cases where it had disallowed injunctions to prohibit the issuance of a writ, even pending actions for annulment of mortgage of the foreclosure itself. Any questions regarding the validity and regularity of the public sale should be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a writ of possession, issued after an extrajudicial foreclosure, could be enforced against a spouse who claimed the mortgage was executed without their valid consent.
What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order that directs a sheriff to deliver possession of property to the party entitled to it, such as the purchaser in a foreclosure sale.
What is an extrajudicial foreclosure?	An extrajudicial foreclosure is a process by which a lender can sell a mortgaged property outside of court proceedings to recover the outstanding debt.
Who is considered a third party in possession?	A third party in possession is someone who is not a party to the mortgage agreement and is claiming a right to the property that is adverse to the debtor or mortgagor.
What is a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)?	A Special Power of Attorney is a legal document that authorizes one person (the attorney-in-fact) to act on behalf of another person (the principal) in specific matters.
What happens if a spouse uses an invalid SPA?	If an SPA is proven to be invalid or fraudulent, any transactions made under it may be voidable, meaning the principal has the option to nullify the transaction.
Can a court interfere with a writ of possession?	Generally, no court can interfere with the issuance or enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another court of concurrent jurisdiction; however, exceptions exist for third parties in adverse possession.
What is the significance of a notarized document?	Notarized documents are presumed to be valid and duly executed, carrying evidentiary weight in legal proceedings.
What law governs extrajudicial foreclosure?	Act No. 3135, as amended, governs extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Penson v. Maranan underscores the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding the implications of mortgage agreements and Special Powers of Attorney. It reinforces the rights of lenders in extrajudicial foreclosures while also providing clarity on the circumstances under which a writ of possession can be enforced. This case serves as a reminder for spouses to exercise due diligence and seek legal advice when dealing with property and financial transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Angelo Dwight Penson v. Spouses Melchor and Virginia Maranan, G.R. No. 148630, June 20, 2006