This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-10-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial function of the court, which cannot be enjoined or restrained, even by the filing of a civil case for the declaration of nullity of the foreclosure and consequent auction sale.[15] Once title to the property has been consolidated in the buyer's name upon failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right belonging to the buyer. Consequently, the buyer can demand possession of the property at anytime. Its right to possession has then ripened into the right of a confirmed absolute owner and the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial function that does not admit of the exercise of the court's discretion. The court, acting on an application for its issuance, should issue the writ as a matter of course and without any delay.[16] | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A debtor has one year from the date the Certificate of Sale is registered with the Register of Deeds within which to redeem his property.[75] During the one-year redemption period, the purchaser may possess the property by filing a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before the court, upon the posting of a bond.[76] But after the one-year period, the purchaser has a right to consolidate the title and to possess the property, without need of a bond.[77] And once title is consolidated under the name of the purchaser, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial on the part of the court; thus, no discretion is left to the court.[78] Questions regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale may not be raised as a ground to oppose or hold in abeyance the issuance of the writ of possession as these must be raised in a separate action for the annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale.[79] The pendency of such action is also not a ground to stay the issuance of a writ of possession.[80] | |||||