A petition for the issuance of a writ of possession (an ex parte proceeding) and

an action questioning the validity of extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings (a

n ordinary action) may not be consolidated after the lapse of the one year redem
ption period.
Firematic Philippines sought a loan from United Overseas Bank. It was represente
d by the spouses Espinoza who owned the company. They mortgaged four parcels of
land as collateral for the loan. Firematic defaulted on the loan and the propert
ies were auctioned off to the highest bidder. The highest bidder was UOB. The ce
rtificate of sale was registered with the Register of Deeds along with an affida
vit of consolidation of ownership of the property.
UOB, respondent, then filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of p
ossession with the RTC. This was opposed by the petitioners who movied for the c
onsolidation of the proceedings (the issuance of the writ of possession and an a
ction for nullification of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and certif
icate of sale of the property subject of this case. The RTC granted the motion o
f the petitioners and consolidated the cases. Respondent filed a petition for ce
rtiorari and mandamus at the CA. This too was granted. RTC order was reversed an
d set aside.
W/N a case for the issuance of a writ of possession may be consolidated with the
proceedings for the nullification of extra-judicial foreclosure.
No. The order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the fil
ing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond if the redem
ption period has not yet lapsed. If the redemption period has expired, then the
filing of the bond is no longer necessary. Any and all questions regarding the r
egularity and validity of the sale is left to be determined in a subsequent proc
eeding and such questions may not be raised as a justification for opposing the
issuance of a writ of possession.
In other words, the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex part
e and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of
one party only and without notice by the court to any person adverse of interest
. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving the person against
whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte petition for
issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding. It is a judicial
proceeding for the enforcement of one's right of possession as purchaser in a f
oreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party s
ues another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the prev
ention or redress of a wrong.
On the other hand, by its nature, a petition for nullification or annulment of f
oreclosure proceedings contests the presumed right of ownership of the buyer in
a foreclosure sale and puts in issue such presumed right of ownership. Thus, a p
arty scheming to defeat the right to a writ of possession of a buyer in a forecl
osure sale who had already consolidated his ownership over the property subject
of the foreclosure sale can simply resort to the subterfuge of filing a petition
for nullification of foreclosure proceedings with motion for consolidation of t
he petition for issuance of a writ of possession. This is not allowed as it will
render nugatory the presumed right of ownership, as well as the right of posses
sion, of a buyer in a foreclosure sale, rights which are supposed to be implemen
ted in an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession.
The only exception would be if the writ of possession were filed for before the
lapse of the 1 year redemption period. This was not so in this case as the perio
d had already lapsed.