Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. CHARLIE FORTALEZA AND OFELIA FORTALEZA v. SPS. RAUL LAPITAN AND RONA LAPITAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NOS. 153745-46 2015-10-14	NEMENCIO C. PULUMBARIT v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
In Spouses Fortaleza v. Spouses Lapitan, we reiterated the established doctrine that there are no vested rights to rules of procedure.[55] Spouses Fortaleza involved a case wherein the justice assigned to complete the records also decided the case on the merits, in alleged violation of the Court of Appeals' internal two-raffle system. This procedural shortcut, according to Spouses Fortaleza, evinced the appellate court's bias and prejudgment in favor of Spouses Lapitan. We rejected their argument and ruled thus: xxx [T]he two-raffle system is already abandoned under the 2009 IRCA. As the rule now stands, the Justice to whom a case is raffled shall act. on it both at the completion stage and for the decision on the merits xxx
	GR No. 196864 2015-07-08	SPS. VICTOR P. DULNUAN AND JACQUELINE P. DULNUAN v. METROPOLITAN BANK PEREZ, J.
Second. The pendency of the action assailing the validity of the mortgage should not bar the issuance of the writ of possession. A pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession.[22] Regardless of the pendency of such suit, the purchaser remains entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice, of course, to the eventual outcome of the pending annulment case. Emphatic to the point is the ruling of the Court in Spouses Fortaleza v. Spouses Lapitan:[23]
	GR No. 196040 2014-08-26	FE H. OKABE v. ERNESTO A. SATURNINO PERALTA, J.
Under the provision cited above, the purchaser or the mortgagee who is also the purchaser in the foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period,[30] upon an ex-parte motion and after furnishing a bond.
	GR No. 183058 2013-04-03	SPS. MONTANO T. TOLOSA AND MERLINDA TOLOSA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERSBANK PEREZ, J.
Given the ministerial nature of the RTC's duty to issue the writ of possession after the purchaser has consolidated its ownership, it has been ruled, moreover, that any question regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be raised as justification for opposing the issuance of the writ.[39] More to the point, a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of possession.[40] Regardless of the pendency of such suit, the purchaser remains entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice, of course, to the eventual outcome of the pending annulment case.[41] Otherwise stated, the issuance of the writ of possession remains the ministerial duty of the RTC until the issues raised in the annulment case are, once and for all, decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.[42]