METRO

SC: Appeal cannot stop possession of foreclosed property

Alvin Murcia··2 MIN READ

THE Supreme Court

THE Supreme Court

Text size

The Supreme Court has ruled that filing an appeal against an extrajudicial foreclosure or a writ of possession does not automatically prevent the buyer from taking possession of the foreclosed property.

In a decision dated April 7, 2026, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Court’s Third Division denied the petition of spouses Anthony and Ma. Fatima An and upheld the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB).

The case stemmed from the couple’s failure to repay a P2 million loan, which led to the foreclosure of their property.

Also read DOJ, DENR step up environmental law enforcement in Bicol

Although the spouses challenged the foreclosure and appealed the trial court’s order, the Supreme Court affirmed PNB’s right to take possession of the property.

The Court of Appeals earlier upheld the issuance of the writ but found that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in suspending its implementation while the appeal was pending.

The Supreme Court agreed, explaining that a buyer of foreclosed property becomes its absolute owner if the property is not redeemed within one year from the registration of the certificate of sale.

Once ownership is transferred, the RTC has a ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession, meaning it is legally required to grant the buyer possession of the property.

The Court clarified that while appeals generally suspend the execution of judgments, this rule does not apply to writs of possession issued under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended.

Also read Macalintal hopeful SC will reverse BSKE ruling

Borrowers may still challenge the foreclosure by questioning whether the mortgage was violated or whether the foreclosure proceedings complied with legal requirements.

They may also appeal the issuance of a writ of possession or file a separate case seeking to annul the mortgage and foreclosure sale.

However, the Court emphasized that these legal remedies do not automatically suspend the issuance or implementation of the writ.

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC had no legal basis to delay the enforcement of PNB’s writ of possession merely because the spouses had filed an appeal.