This Supreme Court decision clarifies that once the redemption period for a foreclosed property has lapsed and the title has been consolidated under the purchaser’s name, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court. Furthermore, it emphasizes that judges who disregard basic rules of procedure, such as the notice requirements for motions, may be held administratively liable for grave abuse of authority. This ruling ensures the efficient enforcement of property rights and reinforces the importance of judicial adherence to procedural due process.

Foreclosure Fallout: When a Judge’s Discretion Obscured a Bank’s Right to Possess

The case of Spouses Reynaldo and Hilly G. Sombilon v. Atty. Rey Ferdinand Garay and Philippine National Bank and the related administrative matter against Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr., presents a complex scenario involving property rights, foreclosure, and judicial conduct. It all began when the spouses Sombilon mortgaged their property to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as security for a loan. When they defaulted, PNB foreclosed on the property and emerged as the winning bidder at the public auction. After the one-year redemption period lapsed without the Sombilons redeeming the property, PNB sought a writ of possession from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Branch 8, presided over by Judge Venadas, Sr. The court initially granted the petition and issued the writ, but later held its implementation in abeyance due to concerns about the conduct of Atty. Rey Ferdinand Garay, who had purchased the property from PNB after representing Hilly Sombilon in a prior criminal case.

This decision by Judge Venadas, Sr., prompted a series of legal challenges. PNB and Atty. Garay filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the judge had committed grave abuse of discretion. Simultaneously, Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint against Judge Venadas, Sr., alleging grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. The CA sided with PNB and Atty. Garay, setting aside the RTC’s order holding the writ of possession in abeyance. The Sombilons then appealed to the Supreme Court, while the administrative matter against Judge Venadas, Sr., proceeded separately.

The Supreme Court consolidated these cases to address two central issues: whether Judge Venadas, Sr., committed grave abuse of discretion in holding the writ of possession in abeyance, and whether he should be administratively sanctioned for this action and for disregarding procedural rules regarding notice. The Court emphasized the **ministerial duty** of courts to issue a writ of possession to the purchaser of a foreclosed property once the redemption period has expired and the title has been consolidated. The Court stated:

And once title is consolidated under the name of the purchaser, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial on the part of the court; thus, no discretion is left to the court.

The Court acknowledged that there are limited exceptions to this rule, such as cases involving fraud or irregularity in the foreclosure process. However, the Sombilons’ argument that the sale between PNB and Atty. Garay was invalid due to a potential conflict of interest did not fall within these exceptions.

The Sombilons based their argument on Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits certain individuals, including lawyers, from acquiring property involved in litigation in which they have participated. Specifically, paragraph 5 states:

Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.

However, the Court clarified that this prohibition did not automatically invalidate the sale between PNB and Atty. Garay. The Court reasoned that this issue should be addressed in a separate action for annulment of the sale, not as a bar to the issuance of the writ of possession. Therefore, Judge Venadas, Sr., had overstepped his authority by holding the writ in abeyance.

Regarding the administrative matter, the Court found Judge Venadas, Sr., guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of procedure. The Court explained that the judge had disregarded Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which require proper notice to all parties concerned before a motion can be heard. The specific sections of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court are as follows:

SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

Because the Sombilons failed to provide proper notice to PNB and Atty. Garay, Judge Venadas, Sr., should not have entertained their motion for reconsideration. This disregard for basic procedural rules constituted gross ignorance of the law, for which the judge was fined P20,000.00.

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to established legal procedures. While judges have a degree of discretion in managing their courtrooms, they cannot disregard fundamental rules of procedure or substantive law. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty in certain circumstances, and that failure to follow proper notice requirements can result in administrative sanctions.

FAQs

What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order that directs the sheriff to place a person in possession of a property. In foreclosure cases, it is typically issued to the purchaser of the property after the redemption period has expired.
When is the issuance of a writ of possession considered a ministerial duty?	The issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty when the redemption period has lapsed, the title to the property has been consolidated in the purchaser’s name, and no valid grounds exist to challenge the purchaser’s right to possess the property. In such cases, the court has no discretion to deny the writ.
What is the redemption period in foreclosure cases?	The redemption period is the time allowed by law for the original owner of a foreclosed property to buy back the property by paying the outstanding debt, interest, and costs. In the Philippines, the redemption period for judicial foreclosures is typically one year from the date of the foreclosure sale.
What is Article 1491 of the Civil Code about?	Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits certain individuals, such as judges, lawyers, and other officers connected with the administration of justice, from acquiring property involved in litigation in which they have participated. The purpose is to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain the integrity of the legal system.
What is the three-day notice rule?	The three-day notice rule, as embodied in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, requires that a written motion and notice of hearing be served on the other party at least three days before the hearing date. This ensures that the other party has sufficient time to prepare and respond to the motion.
What is gross ignorance of the law?	Gross ignorance of the law is a serious offense committed by judges who demonstrate a blatant disregard for basic legal principles and procedures. It can result in administrative sanctions, including fines, suspension, or even dismissal from service.
What are the potential consequences for a judge who disregards procedural rules?	A judge who disregards procedural rules, such as the notice requirements for motions, may be held administratively liable for misconduct, including grave abuse of authority or gross ignorance of the law. The penalties can range from a fine to dismissal from service, depending on the severity of the offense.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Judge Venadas, Sr., in the administrative case?	The Supreme Court ruled against Judge Venadas, Sr., because he disregarded the three-day notice rule and other procedural requirements in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. He proceeded with the hearing of the Sombilons’ motion for reconsideration despite the lack of proper notice to PNB and Atty. Garay.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and respecting property rights. The ruling serves as a reminder to judges of their ministerial duties and the potential consequences of disregarding basic rules of procedure.

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: SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON VS. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY, G.R. No. 179914, June 16, 2014