Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARTIN T. SAGARBARRIA v. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK

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.
A writ of possession is simply an order by which the sheriff is commanded by the court to place a person in possession of a real or personal property.[25] Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale either (1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond; or (2) after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond. Within the one-year redemption period, the purchaser may apply for a writ of possession by filing a petition in the form of an ex parte motion under oath,[26] in the registration or cadastral proceedings of the registered property.[27] The law requires only that the proper motion be filed, the bond approved and no third person is involved.[28] After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.[29] In the latter case, the right of possession becomes absolute because the basis thereof is the purchaser's ownership of the property.[30]
	GR No. 199747 2013-04-03	TEODORO DARCEN v. V. R. GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
In its Order dated March 16, 2010, the RTC-Branch 81 held that respondent company was not guilty of forum shopping, citing Sagarbarria v. Philippine Business Bank,[56] as follows: [A]ct No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, is categorical in stating that the purchaser must first be placed in possession of the mortgaged property pending proceedings assailing the issuance of the writ of possession.
	GR No. 200667 2013-03-11	RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA v. GERRY CENTENO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well-established that after consolidation of title in the purchaser's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchaser's right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper application and proof of title, to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function,[17] unless it appears that the property is in possession of a third party claiming a right adverse to that of the mortgagor.[18] The foregoing rule is contained in Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which partly provides: Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given.
	GR No. 192377 2012-07-25	CESAR V. MADRIAGA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
Indeed, the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any person adversely interested. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without affording the person against whom the relief is sought the opportunity to be heard.[25] No notice is needed to be served upon persons interested in the subject property.[26] And as held in Carlos v. Court of Appeals,[27] the ex parte nature of the proceeding does not deny due process to the petitioners because the issuance of the writ of possession does not bar a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale. Hence, the RTC may grant the petition even in the absence of Madriaga, Sr.'s participation.
	GR No. 188051 2010-11-22	ASIA UNITED BANK v. GOODLAND COMPANY NACHURA, J.
The nature of an ex parte petition for issuance of the possessory writ under Act No. 3135 has been described as a non-litigious proceeding and summary in nature.[32] As an ex parte proceeding, it is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to or consent by any person adversely interested.[33]
	GR No. 176518 2010-03-02	PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY v. METROPOLITAN BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Idolor v. Court of Appeals,[37] we described the nature of the ex parte petition for issuance of possessory writ under Act No. 3135 to be a non-litigious proceeding and summary in nature. As an ex parte proceeding, it is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested.[38] It is a proceeding where the relief is granted without requiring an opportunity for the person against whom the relief is sought to be heard.[39] It does not matter even if the herein petitioners were not specifically named in the writ of possession nor notified of such proceedings.[40] In Sagarbarria v. Philippine Business Bank,[41] we rejected therein petitioner's contention that he was denied due process when the trial court issued the writ of possession without notice.