Supreme Court says appeals don’t suspend writ of possession of foreclosed properties

MANILA — The Supreme Court clarified that remedies such as appeals filed by a borrower before a court do not automatically prevent a buyer from taking possession of a foreclosed property.

In a decision promulgated on April 7, 2026, the Third Division denied the petition for review filed by a couple and upheld the issuance of a lower court of a writ of possession in favor of Philippine National Bank. 

The case stemmed from the P2-million loan of the spouses from Allied Banking Corporation with their property used as a collateral. 

When the couple failed to pay the loan, PNB, which acquired Allied Bank, foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially and sold the property at a public auction. 

PNB made the highest bid and became the property’s owner after the couple failed to redeem it within the one-year period allowed by law. 

PNB then asked the Regional Trial  Court to issue a writ of possession, which is a court order allowing a party to take possession of a property.

The RTC then issued a writ of possession in favor of PNB because the couple failed to redeem the property within the one-year period. 

When the couple made an appeal, the RTC suspended the implementation of the writ but the Court of Appeals eventually ruled that the lower court erred in suspending the implementation. 

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling, reiterating that the issuance of a writ of possession is purely ministerial on the part of the RTC and is a matter of course.

“The filing of an appeal to question the order of the RTC granting the issuance of the writ will not stay its execution,” the court said in the resolution penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh. 

The Supreme Court also said the CA did not commit a reversible error when it ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued an order holding in abeyance the implementation of the writ of possession it had earlier issued in favor of PNB.

The High Court noted that it has long held in a line of cases that the filing of an independent action to annul the mortgage or invalidate the foreclosure proceeding does not stay the implementation of the writ of possession.

“Thus, it is not proper to hold in abeyance the issuance of the writ absent an injunctive order,” the court said.