Anecito Campos vs LBP

GR No. 207597, May 30 2016-10-30

FACTS:
Campos, the petitioner mortgaged 14 lots in favor of the Far East Bank and
Trust Co. now Bank of the Philippine Islands. The mortgage is to secure a 1
million peso loan. Among these lots was the vacant lot no. 7-G-4 in which
Campos constructed a two-storey building allegedly with the knowledge and
consent of the bank. But due to the business losses, petitioner failed to pay
his loan. Consequently, the bank moved for the extrajudicial foreclosure of
the mortgaged lots.
The bank asked for the writ of possession over the lots. After such was
issued, Anecito filed a motion for the suspension of the implementation of
the writ of possession and/or to allow the mortgagor to present evidence of
good faith citing Article 546 in relation to Articles 448 and 450 of the civil
Code, he claimed that he has the right to retain possession of the land until
the bank reimburses him the value of the building.
The bank counterclaimed that it has no obligation to reimburse the
mortgagor for the value of the improvements as it is provided in the
mortgage contract that all improvements existing may be introduced in the
future should form part of the mortgage.

Ruling of the RTC

The Court denied the motion for lack of merit. It ruled that upon the
expiration of the redemption period, its duty to issue a writ of possession is
ministerial. Also, any cause of action for the reimbursement may be pursued
in a separate civil action but not in non-litigious and ex parte proceeding for
the issuance of a writ of possession.
Campos filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the RTC.
CAs Ruling
CA dismissed the case after finding that there is no grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the RTC.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:
WON petitioner is entitled to possession of the lot until such time the
mortgagee or successor in interest reimburses the value of the building built
on the lot, Article 548 in relation to Articles 448 and 450.
HELD:
The SC denied the petition for lack of merit citing Policarpio as authority to
contradict overwhelming jurisprudence that the RTCs duty to issue a writ of
possession in extrajudicial foreclosure sales is ministerial.
The lis mota in Policarpuo was not the character of a writ of possession but
the arbitrariness of the trial courts action.
Furthermore, the mortgagees construction was made 3 years after the title
to the property was consolidated in the bank but before the latter acquired
possession. In other words, the mortgagees built on the banks property.
Articles 448, 450 and 546 are provisions on good faith of the builder
contemplate situations when a person builds on the land of another.
They do not apply when, as in the present case, the owner builds on his own
property.