This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is thus clear that during and after the period of redemption, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled as of right to a writ of possession. Thus, in Kho v. Court of Appeals,[8] we ruled that an injunction to prohibit the issuance of a writ of possession is utterly out of place. And once the writ of possession has been issued, the court has no alternative but to enforce the said writ without delay.[9] Verily, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in enjoining the implementation of the writ of possession issued in respondent's favor. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Thus, we also affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling to set aside the RTC orders enjoining the enforcement of the writ of possession.[27] The purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of possession, regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure proceedings. An injunction to prohibit the issuance or enforcement of the writ is entirely out of place.[28] | |||||