"x x x.
First, Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, explicitly allows the purchaser of a foreclosed property to file an ex parte motion to acquire possession of the property:
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 parte motion xxx 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.2 [emphases supplied]
Neither the Bank nor the trial court was obligated to furnish Campos with notice of the proceedings. An ex parte proceeding is one made at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without giving notice to or hearing from any person adversely affected.3 Campos was not entitled to participate in the proceedings except to the extent permitted by Section 8 of Act No. 3135.4 Considering that he never questioned the validity of the sale, Campos’ remedy was to institute a separate civil action for the value of the improvements.
Failure to redeem the foreclosed property extinguishes the mortgagor’s remaining interest in it. Following the consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the purchaser’s name, the purchaser can demand possession at any time as a result of his absolute ownership5 With the consolidated title, the purchaser becomes entitled to possession and it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession.6 Likewise, the implementation of the writ is a ministerial duty; otherwise, the writ will be a useless paper judgment.7
The writ issues as a matter of course and the court is left with no alternative or discretion except to issue the writ.8[The rationale is to immediately vest possession of the property in the purchaser, such possession being founded on his right of ownership.9 The only exception is if the property is possessed by a third party whose possession is adverse to the mortgagor.10
The RTC therefore did not err – and did not abuse its discretion -when it issued the writ of possession ex parte and denied Campos’ motion to suspend its implementation.
x x x."
