Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. FELIPE YULIENCO AND FLORA YULIENCO v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 162757 2013-12-11	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO BERSAMIN, J.
If the redemption period expires without the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest redeeming the foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds, the title over the property consolidates in the purchaser. The consolidation confirms the purchaser as the owner entitled to the possession of the property without any need for him to file the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. 3135.[22] The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser becomes a matter of right upon the consolidation of title in his name,[23] while the mortgagor, by failing to redeem, loses all interest in the property.[24]
	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. 159550 2008-06-27	LUCIA CARLOS ALIÑO v. HEIRS OF ANGELICA A. LORENZO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On April 2, 1979, Angelica A. Lorenzo (Angelica), Lucia's daughter, bought the subject lot for P10,000.00 under a Deed of Absolute Sale.[3] Consequently, TCT No. T-15443 was canceled and TCT No. T-15500[4] was issued in Angelica's name. The subject lot was declared for taxation purposes in Angelica's name under Tax Declaration No. 14136.[5]
	GR No. 167280 2008-04-30	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE QUISUMBING, J.
First, no extrinsic fraud was employed by petitioner in not informing respondents of the institution of the writ of possession case. A petition for the issuance of the writ, under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is not an ordinary action filed in court, by which one party "sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or prevention or redress of a wrong." [26] It is in the nature of an ex parte motion which the court hears only one side. It is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party, and without notice to or consent by any party adversely affected. [27] Accordingly, upon the filing of a proper motion by the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, and the approval of the corresponding bond, the writ of possession issues as a matter of course and the trial court has no discretion on this matter. [28]
	GR NO. 167998 2007-04-27	LZK HOLDINGS v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK QUISUMBING, J.
Lastly, the trial on the merits has not even started. Until the foreclosure sale of the property in question is annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, petitioner is bereft of valid title and of the right to prevent the issuance of a writ of possession to respondent. Until then, it is the trial court's ministerial function to grant the possessory writ to respondent.[28]
	GR NO. 160479 2005-06-08	SPS. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA AND REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Well established is the rule that after the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.[32] The issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summary in nature, it cannot be said to be a judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transfer of title. Hence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentia or res judicata.[33]
	GR No. 151941 2003-08-15	CHAILEASE FINANCE v. SPS. ROMEO I. MA AND MARIAFE L. MA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It has been consistently held that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial function.[10] The order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond.[11] The court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment. If only to stress the writ's ministerial character, we have, in previous cases, disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that issuance of the same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself.[12]