Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

F. DAVID ENTERPRISES v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 181873 2013-11-27	SPS. PIO DATO AND SONIA Y. SIA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS REYES, J.
The Court is in consonance with the CA and RTC that BPI is entitled to receive rental fees as the new owner of the property covered by TCT No. 102434 (Now TCT No. 130468)[58], following the Court's ruling in F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America[59], that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale.[60]
	GR No. 183027 2010-07-26	SPS. EDMUNDO AND LOURDES SARROSA v. WILLY O. DIZON PERALTA, J.
The RTC held that respondent is entitled to a writ of possession based on the rule that after the redemption period has expired, the purchaser of the foreclosed property has the right to be placed in possession thereof.[15] Possession of the property becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as owner; and, upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of a writ of possession in his favor becomes a ministerial duty of the court.[16]
	GR No. 187556 2010-05-05	PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JAMES NG CARPIO MORALES, J.
Since respondents failed to redeem the mortgage within the reglementary period, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right and the issuance thereof is merely a ministerial function.[11]
	GR No. 184005 2009-08-04	TOP ART SHIRT MANUFACTURING v. METROPOLITAN BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Hence, the general rule is that upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession to the purchaser of the foreclosed property at a public auction sale becomes a ministerial duty of the court.[20]
	GR No. 174711 2008-09-17	SALLY SUENO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of ownership of the property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title. In such a case, the bond required in Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is no longer necessary. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner.[20] Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court.[21]
	GR No. 164919 2008-07-04	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. TOBIAS L. LOZADA AND ERLINA P. LOZADA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is settled that upon receipt of the definitive deed in an execution sale, legal title over the property sold is perfected (33 C. J. S. 554). And this court has also [said] and that the land bought by him and described in the deed deemed (sic) within the period allowed for that purpose, its ownership becomes consolidated in the purchaser, and the latter, as absolute owner is entitled to its possession and to receive the rents and fruits thereof. (Powell v. Philippine National Bank, 54 Phil., 54, 63.) x x x.[47] It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No such bond is required after the redemption period if the property is not redeemed. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court.[48]
	GR NOS. 150773 & 153599 2005-09-30	SPS. DAVID B. CARPO AND RECHILDA S. CARPO v. ELEANOR CHUA TINGA, J.
Accordingly, no error can be attributed to the Court of Appeals in granting the petition for certiorari and mandamus. As pointed out by respondents, the remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.[26]
	AM NO. RTJ-03-1750 2005-01-14	MAMERTO MANIQUIZ FOUNDATION v. ROGELIO M. PIZARRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A writ of possession is generally understood to be an order whereby the sheriff is commanded to place a person in possession of a real and personal property, such as when a property is extrajudicially foreclosed.[28] The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure such as in the case at bar is merely a ministerial function.[29]