Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL SALES CENTER

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 211649 2015-08-12	AQA GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The general rule is that after the lapse of the redemption period, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased who is entitled to the possession of the said property. Upon ex parte petition, it is ministerial upon the trial court to issue the writ of possession in his favor. The exception, however, is provided under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules,[37] which applies suppletorily to extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate mortgages. Under the said provision of law, the possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor:[38]
	GR No. 191540 2015-01-21	SPS. JOSE O. GATUSLAO v. LEO RAY V. YANSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court rules in the negative. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc.[27] reiterates the long-standing rule that: [I]t is settled that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession. The trial court, where the application for a writ of possession is filed, does not need to look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. The purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession without prejudice to the outcome of the pending annulment case.
	GR No. 179691 2013-12-04	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG BRION, J.
We have consistently held that the purchaser can demand possession of the property even during the redemption period for as long as he files an ex parte motion under oath and post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended.[24] Upon filing of the motion and the approval of the bond, the law also directs the court in express terms to issue the order for a writ of possession.
	GR No. 199747 2013-04-03	TEODORO DARCEN v. V. R. GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
Moreover, we made it clear in the recent case of BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc.,[36] that not even a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale will stay the issuance of the writ of possession: Furthermore, it is settled that a pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession. The trial court, where the application for a writ of possession is filed, does not need to look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. The purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession without prejudice to the outcome of the pending annulment case.[37] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 200667 2013-03-11	RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA v. GERRY CENTENO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In China Banking Corporation v. Lozada,[19] the Court held 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.[20] Notably, the property should not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by the third party adversely to the judgment obligor.[21]
	GR No. 192377 2012-07-25	CESAR V. MADRIAGA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
In BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc.,[36] the Court discussed the meaning of a "third-party who is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor"