Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. REMPSON SAMSON AND MILAGROS SAMSON v. JUDGE MAURICIO M. RIVERA

This case has been cited 21 times or more.

	GR No. 171172 2015-11-09	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. JOHNSON AND EVELYN CO AND JUPITER REAL ESTATE VENTURES JARDELEZA, J.
On October 21, 2005, Spouses Co and Jupiter filed a notice of appeal of the Order dated September 30, 2005.[26] In its comment, BPI argued that the order of the trial court granting a writ of possession is merely interlocutory from which no appeal is taken.[27] Spouses Co and Jupiter countered that based on the case of Samson v. Rivera,[28] the remedy from an order granting a writ of possession is an ordinary appeal.[29]
	GR No. 172504 2013-07-31	DONNA C. NAGTALON v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
We stress that the petitioner's present case is not analogous to any of the above-mentioned exceptions. The facts are not only different from those cited above; the alleged peculiar circumstances pertain to the validity of the mortgage, a matter that may be determined by a competent court after the issuance of the writ of possession.[33]
	GR No. 199747 2013-04-03	TEODORO DARCEN v. V. R. GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
The established rule is that the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property if no redemption is made within one (1) year from the registration of the certificate of sale by those who are entitled to redeem.[27] Possession being a recognized essential attribute of ownership,[28] after consolidation of title the purchaser may demand possession as a matter of right.[29] Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, the issuance of the writ is merely a ministerial function of the RTC, which the new owner may obtain through an ex parte motion.[30] Section 7 of Act No. 3135 provides: Sec. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.
	GR No. 178288 2012-08-15	SPS. CHARLIE FORTALEZA AND OFELIA FORTALEZA v. SPS. RAUL LAPITAN AND RONA LAPITAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Lastly, we agree with the CA that any question regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be raised as a justification for opposing the petition for the issuance of the writ of possession.[43] The said issues may be raised and determined only after the issuance of the writ of possession.[44] Indeed, "[t]he judge with whom an application for writ of possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure."[45] The writ issues as a matter of course. "The rationale for the rule is to allow the purchaser to have possession of the foreclosed property without delay, such possession being founded on the right of ownership."[46] To underscore this mandate, Section 847 of Act No. 3135 gives the debtor-mortgagor the right to file a petition for the setting aside of the foreclosure sale and for the cancellation of a writ of possession in the same proceedings where the writ was issued within 30 days after the purchaser-mortgagee was given possession. The court's decision thereon may be appealed by either party, but the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal.
	GR No. 192377 2012-07-25	CESAR V. MADRIAGA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
The right of the owner to the possession of a property is an essential attribute of ownership.[30] In extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner when no redemption is made. Thus, after consolidation of ownership and issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the purchaser, he is entitled to possession of the property[31] as a matter of right under Section 7, and its issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial function.[32]
	GR No. 157644 2010-11-17	SPS. ERNESTO v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
The above-cited provision lays down the procedure that commences from the filing of a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, to the issuance of the writ of possession by the Court, and finally to the execution of the order by the sheriff of the province in which the property is located. Based on the text of the law, we have also consistently ruled that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial; the writ issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond.[55] In fact, the issuance and the immediate implementation of the writ are declared ministerial and mandatory under the law.
	GR No. 168672 2010-08-08	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. DNG REALTY PERALTA, J.
Anent the first issue, respondent DNG filed before the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction seeking to annul the RTC Order dated September 6, 2004 issued in Cadastral Case No. 2414-AF, i.e., in re ex-parte petition filed by petitioner EPCIB for the issuance of a writ of possession, which ordered the issuance of the writ of possession in petitioner EPCIB's favor as the new registered owner of the property covered by TCT No. T-109482. We find that the CA erred in acting on the petition. Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, which regulates the methods of effecting an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage explicitly authorizes the issuance of such writ of possession.[8] Section 7 of Act 3135 as amended provides: Section 7. Possession during redemption period. - In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the [Regional Trial Court] of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in the form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.
	GR No. 157659 2010-01-25	ELIGIO P. MALLARI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BERSAMIN, J.
Accordingly, the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest must redeem the foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds in order to avoid the title from consolidating in the purchaser. By failing to redeem thuswise, the mortgagor loses all interest over the foreclosed property.[38] The purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends beyond the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made,[39] that it is no longer necessary for the purchaser to file the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, considering that the possession of the land becomes his absolute right as the land's confirmed owner.[40] The consolidation of ownership in the purchaser's name and the issuance to him of a new TCT then entitles him to demand possession of the property at any time, and the issuance of a writ of possession to him becomes a matter of right upon the consolidation of title in his name.
	GR No. 146157 2009-02-13	LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In foreclosure proceedings, the buyer becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the prescribed period of redemption,[53] which is one year from the date of registration of the sale.[54] In the case at bar, the 3 November 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856 not only determined and declared that the foreclosure sale of the subject properties occurred on 25 March 1976; it also acknowledged that there existed in the record a Certificate of Sale dated 31 March 1976 issued by the Sheriff of Quezon City and subsequently annotated on the titles of the subject properties. Hence, although the said decision did not categorically state the date of the registration of sale, which was 30 April 1976, and while the inclusion of this piece of information in the decision would have been ideal, such precision is not absolutely necessary nor the lack thereof fatal to the certainty of the judgment. Besides, fixing the date at one year from said registration, or on 1 May 1977, is easily discernible as the logical consequence of the meaning of the period stated.
	GR No. 156421 2008-04-14	JOSE FERNADEZ v. SPS. GREGORIO ESPINOZA AND JOJI GADOR-ESPINOZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The spouses Espinoza's position that the issuance of the writ of possession must be deferred pending resolution of Civil Case No. 66256 is therefore unavailing. As we have recounted above, this Court has long settled that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession.[23]
	GR NO. 165963 2007-09-03	SPS. NORBERTO OLIVEROS AND ELVIRA OLIVEROS v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
After the one-year redemption period, the mortgagor loses all interest over the foreclosed property.[15] The purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made.[16] In such a situation, the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is no longer needed. The possession of land becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner.[17] The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function.[18] As such, the court cannot exercise its discretion.
	GR NO. 165963 2007-09-03	SPS. NORBERTO OLIVEROS AND ELVIRA OLIVEROS v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Equally akin is Samson v. Rivera,[27] in which it was ruled that:Under the provision cited above, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing for that purpose an ex parte motion under oath, in the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of a property with torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the court is expressly directed to issue the writ.
	GR No. 171687 2007-06-08	JETRI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner Jetri Construction Corporation raises the validity of the foreclosure sale as a ground to attack the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Possession. This is erroneous. This Court, in numerous decisions, has enunciated that any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession.[12] Regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of course to the eventual outcome of the said case.[13] Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.[14] In fact, petitioner itself has already commenced Civil Case No. 04-111298 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 50 for annulment of mortgage foreclosure. Therefore, the determination of the validity of said foreclosure sale is best left to the discretion of the court wherein said complaint has been filed.
	GR NO. 167998 2007-04-27	LZK HOLDINGS v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK QUISUMBING, J.
We have consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial court. Any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8[23] of Act No. 3135. Such question cannot be raised to oppose the issuance of the writ, since the proceeding is ex parte. The recourse is available even before the expiration of the redemption period provided by law and the Rules of Court.[24]
	GR NO. 168088 2007-04-04	SAN FERNANDO RURAL BANK v. PAMPANGA OMNIBUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The reliance of the CA in City of Manila v. Serrano[63] is misplaced. In that case, the trial court issued the writ of possession in connection with a complaint for expropriation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Such a writ is interlocutory in nature.[64] On the other hand, an order granting a writ of possession under Act No. 3135, as amended, is of a different species. The latter order is final, hence, appealable.[65] Even if the trial court erred in granting a petition for a writ of possession, such an error is merely an error of judgment correctible by ordinary appeal and not by a petition for a writ of certiorari.[66] Such writ cannot be legally used for any other purpose.
	GR NO. 147902 2006-03-17	SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under the provision above cited, the mortgagor may file a petition to set aside the sale and for the cancellation of a writ of possession with the trial court which issued the writ of possession within 30 days after the purchaser mortgagee was given possession. It provides the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in opposing the issuance of a writ of possession.[35] Thus, this provision presupposes that the trial court already issued a writ of possession. In Sps. Ong v. Court of Appeals,[36] the Court elucidated:The law is clear that the purchaser must first be placed in possession of the mortgaged property pending proceedings assailing the issuance of the writ of possession. If the trial court later finds merit in the petition to set aside the writ of possession, it shall dispose in favor of the mortgagor the bond furnished by the purchaser. Thereafter, either party may appeal from the order of the judge in accordance with Section 14 of Act 496, which provides that "every order, decision, and decree of the Court of Land Registration may be reviewed...in the same manner as an order, decision, decree or judgment of a Court of First Instance (RTC) might be reviewed." The rationale for the mandate is to allow the purchaser to have possession of the foreclosed property without delay, such possession being founded on his right of ownership.[37]
	GR NO. 153951 2005-08-29	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Under the above-quoted provision, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered by a Torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of possession.[45]
	GR No. 153951 2005-07-29	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Under the above-quoted provision, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property covered by a Torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of possession.[45]
	AM NO. RTJ-03-1750 2005-01-14	MAMERTO MANIQUIZ FOUNDATION v. ROGELIO M. PIZARRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Equally instructive is the recent case of Rempson Samson, et al. v. Judge Rivera, et al.[34]
	GR No. 156067 2004-08-11	MADRIGAL TRANSPORT v. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court -- on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision.[36] Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.[37] Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact -- a mistake of judgment -- appeal is the remedy. [38]