Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMMANUEL C. VILLANUEVA v. CHERDAN LENDING INVESTORS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184045 2014-01-22	SPS. NICASIO C. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J. MARQUEZ v. SPS. CARLITO ALINDOG AND CARMEN ALINDOG PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The ministerial issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale, however, admits of an exception. Section 33,[45] Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (Rules) pertinently provides that the possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the property by adverse title or right. In the recent case of Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara (Iloilo), Inc. v. Centeno,[46] citing the case of China Banking Corp., the Court illumined that "the phrase 'a third party who is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor' contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary. The co-owner, agricultural tenant, and usufructuary possess the property in their own right, and they are not merely the successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-owner or the owner of the property. Notably, the property should not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by the third party adversely to the judgment obligor."[47] In other words, as mentioned in Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending Investors Corporation,[48] the third person must therefore claim a right superior to that of the original mortgagor.
	GR No. 167174 2013-09-23	SPS. CARMELITO v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, respondents alleged in their CA Petition that they possess and own portions of the property subject of the Writ of Demolition. In support thereof, they annexed to their Petition and Reply deeds of conveyances, contracts to sell, receipts, etc. showing that the Reyeses already sold to them the portions of the subject lot they respectively occupy. A number of these documents predate the REM which the Reyeses executed in favor of Aldover while others were executed subsequent thereto. Respondents' allegation of actual possession is likewise confirmed by the Sheriff's Partial Report[86] which states that there are several other persons who occupy portions of subject lot and claim to be the owners thereof. In fine, respondents have indubitably shown that they are in actual possession of the disputed portions of subject property. Their possession, under Article 433 of the Civil Code, raises a disputable presumption that they are the owners thereof.[87] Thus, petitioners cannot resort to procedural shortcut in ousting them by the simple expedient of filing a Motion for Special Order of Demolition in LRC Case No. R-6203 for under the same Article 433 petitioners have to file the appropriate judicial process to recover the property from the respondents. This "judicial process," as elucidated in Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending Investors Corporation,[88] "could mean no less than an ejectment suit or a reinvindicatory action, in which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated." Moreover, to dispossess the respondents based on the proceedings taken in LRC Case No. R-6203 where they were not impleaded and did not take part would be tantamount to taking of real property without due process of law.[89]
	GR No. 199747 2013-04-03	TEODORO DARCEN v. V. R. GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
The petitioners now contend that the CA erred in failing to take into account the fact that they, against whom the writ of possession issued by the RTC in P-826-2009 was directed, are adverse claimants who are third parties and strangers to the real estate mortgages executed by their mother. They cite Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending Investors Corporation,[25] where it was reiterated that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial where the property is in the possession of a third party who holds the property under a claim adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor.[26]
	GR No. 164470 2011-11-28	VIOLA CAHILIG v. EUSTAQUIO G. TERENCIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We previously held in Villanueva v. Cherdan Lending Investor, Corporation[11] that: A writ of possession is an order of the court commanding (he sheriff to place a person in possession of a real or personal property. It may be issued in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, 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 or of a separate and independent action.[12]
	GR No. 190122 2011-01-10	SPS. ISAGANI AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. SPS. REGINO SE AND VIOLETA DELA CRUZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
For the enforcement of the writ of possession against respondent Spouses dela Cruz, who did not take part in the foreclosure proceedings, would amount to taking of real property without the benefit of a proper judicial intervention. The procedural shortcut which petitioners is impermissible. Even Article 433 of the Civil Code instructs that "Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property." The contemplated judicial process is not through an ex-parte petition as what petitioners availed of, but a process wherein a third party, Spouses de la Cruz herein, is given an opportunity to be heard.[8]