Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROPOLITAN BANK v. JOSE B. TAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183058 2013-04-03	SPS. MONTANO T. TOLOSA AND MERLINDA TOLOSA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERSBANK PEREZ, J.
The rule is likewise settled that the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex-parte and summary in nature.[31] As one brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any person adverse of interest, it is a judicial proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving the person against whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard.[32] The issuance of the writ of possession is, in turn, a ministerial function in the exercise of which trial courts are not granted any discretion.[33] Since the judge to whom the application for writ of possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure,[34] it has been ruled that the ministerial duty of the trial court does not become discretionary upon the filing of a complaint questioning the mortgage.[35] Corollarily, any question regarding the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and the resulting cancellation of the writ may, likewise, be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8[36] of Act No. 3135.[37]
	GR No. 173820 2012-04-16	PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES PERALTA, J.
A special civil action for certiorari could be availed of only if a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[28] It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases[29] that the remedy of a party from the trial court's order granting the issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said petition.[30] When a writ of possession had already been issued as in this case,[31] the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition for certiorari.[32] To be sure, the trial court's order granting the writ of possession is final.[33] The soundness of the order granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment, with respect to which the remedy of the party aggrieved is ordinary appeal.[34] As respondent availed of the wrong remedy, the appellate court erred in not dismissing outright the petition for certiorari.
	GR No. 176518 2010-03-02	PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY v. METROPOLITAN BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
Since the writ of possession had already been issued in LRC Case No. 6438 per Order dated November 29, 2005, the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition for certiorari,[53] in accordance with our ruling in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tan[54] and Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals.[55] As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctable by an appeal if the aggrieved party raised factual and legal issues; or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if only questions of law are involved.
	GR No. 171386 2009-07-17	GLORIA R. MOTOS v. REAL BANK QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, during the period of redemption, it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of the mortgaged realty. The law requires only that the proper motion be filed, the bond approved, and no third person is involved.[26] No discretion is left to the court. Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale (and consequent cancellation of the writ) is left to be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8.[27] Indeed, such question should not be raised as a justification for opposing the issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding for this is ex parte.[28]
	GR No. 174988 2008-12-10	BANK OF PHIL IPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. HOMOBONO AND LUZDELDIA TARAMPI CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court finds that Branch 220 did not err in giving due course to respondents' Notice of Appeal. In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tan, [24] the Court, resolving the issue of whether it is an appeal or a petition for certiorari that is the proper remedy to assail an order granting a writ of possession to the purchaser of mortgaged property subject of an extrajudicial foreclosure in accordance with Act No. 3135, held:Finally, we agree with Metrobank's contention that the trial court's order granting the writ of possession is final. The proper remedy for respondents is an appeal and not a petition for certiorari. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctable by an appeal if the aggrieved party raised factual and legal issues; or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if only questions of law are involved. In the case at bar, respondents failed to redeem the mortgages within the reglementary period, hence, ownership of the property covered thereby was consolidated in the name of petitioner who had in fact been issued a new TCT. Issuance of a writ of possession thus became a ministerial duty of the court.