This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-22 |
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. | |||||
|
2005-07-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| More than five decades passed without any controversy. On April 24, 1980, Leandro Rigonan executed the assailed Affidavit of Adjudication in favor of his son, Teodoro Rigonan (the deceased husband of Petitioner Delfina vda. de Rigonan).[9] Under this instrument, Leandro declared himself to be the sole heir of Hilarion,[10] while Teodoro obtained the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 00267,[11] and acquired Tax Declaration No. 00667 in his own name.[12] | |||||